Mr R Mauto v Passion Home Care Ltd — 2020

This was a claim of unlawful deduction from wages by Mr R Mauto against Passion Home Care Ltd. The tribunal recorded that it was common ground that the claimant was to be paid £9 per hour for hours worked, and the only disputed issue was how many hours he had actually worked. The claimant said he had been told to submit claims for fewer hours than he worked because of the respondent's cash flow position, with the balance to be paid later or, if not paid, to be met by shares in the business. The respondent denied any such agreement and said the claimant had been paid for all hours worked.

The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence. It found that the claimant's handwritten notes of a meeting on 14 January 2019 were authentic contemporaneous notes recording an arrangement to submit minimal hours and to be paid later, and that the claimant's own ongoing record of hours worked was also authentic. It further found that Diary 1, produced by the respondent, did not record all of the claimant's hours, relying on inconsistencies between that diary and WhatsApp messages. The tribunal also noted that the respondent had altered a transcription of WhatsApp messages, which it considered relevant to credibility.

The tribunal found that the claimant submitted claims for fewer hours than he actually worked, at the respondent's request, and that he was paid only for the hours he claimed in his WhatsApp messages. It accepted that the additional hours were to be paid later and were not paid at all. The tribunal also recorded that the respondent accepted during evidence that the claimant had completed three online training courses at home, for which he had not been paid.

Applying section 13(1) and section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the difference between what the claimant was paid and what he was due for the hours actually worked became payable by no later than termination of employment. It therefore upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim and ordered the respondent to pay £5,377.50 gross, subject to any PAYE deductions required by law.