Case 2414072/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Purcell v Castle Cement Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414072/2021
- Decision date
- 2 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newstead Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Purcell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an HGV driver employed since 1996, was moved onto restricted duties on 1 July 2021 after occupational health advice said he was fit for tanker work but not for packed product trailer work. The move reduced his annual pay from £41,171 to £34,980. The issue before the tribunal was whether the respondent was entitled to pay him at Basic Rate rather than the Flexible Days rate while he remained on restricted duties.
The tribunal found that both the 1996 and 2007 Drivers Handbooks were incorporated into the claimant’s contract, and that the 2007 Handbook continued in force after its stated expiry date because the parties continued to rely on it and had not agreed a replacement. However, Clause 2.15 on restricted duties did not entitle the respondent to reduce the claimant’s wages in the circumstances of this case. The tribunal held that the clause was aimed at shift pattern and working hours issues, not at changing the content of a driver’s work during those hours, and that the claimant had not requested restricted duties within the meaning of that clause.
The tribunal also held that, if Clause 2.15 did apply, the claimant and respondent had in any event agreed in July 2019 that he would work only on bulk tankers at full Flexible Days pay, and that this agreement was either an oral variation or a variation inferred from conduct. On that basis, the claimant’s properly payable wages from 1 July 2021 remained the Flexible Days rate. The difference between that rate and Basic Rate produced deductions of £530.08 per month for six months in 2021 and £547.33 per month for six months in 2022, making a total unlawful deduction of £6,464.46.
The tribunal accepted the respondent’s submission that there was no additional shift change deduction to be accounted for, and that the claimant’s complaint about 10 days of lost time off was already reflected in the calculated figure. Judgment was therefore entered for the claimant for unlawful deduction from wages in the agreed gross sum of £6,464.46.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made unlawful deductions from wages and ordered payment of the agreed gross sum of £6,464.46. The award was not split into separate heads of loss. | Upheld | — | £6,464 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,464
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.13(3) ERA 1996
- s.27(1) ERA 1996
- Griffiths v Buckinghamshire County Council
- Adams v British Airways plc
- Robertson v British Gas Corporation
- Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd
- Armstrong Whitworth Rolls v Mustard
- Frampton Ltd v Badger
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.