Case 2500223/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Mace v EHL UK Building Maintenance & Facility Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2500223/2019
- Decision date
- 29 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
- Venue
- Teesside Justice Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Mace
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Mace was employed by EHL UK Building Maintenance & Facility Services Limited from 16 July 2018 until 24 September 2018. The tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Morris on 8 May 2019, dealt with complaints about deductions from wages and pay documentation.
The respondent conceded that it had deducted £1,069.97 from the claimant's wages paid at the end of September 2018. The tribunal found that deduction was not required or authorised by a relevant contractual provision and therefore was an unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,069.97 under section 24(1)(a).
The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been paid in full for overtime worked at the respondent's request. It held that the shortfall of £799.68 was an unauthorised deduction and ordered payment of that sum under section 24(1)(a). The judgment records that both amounts were calculated by reference to gross pay, with any income tax or employee national insurance liability to be borne by the claimant.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to give the claimant a number of written itemised pay statements contrary to section 8 of the 1996 Act. However, the claimant accepted that any unnotified deductions were not made during the 13 weeks immediately before the application, so the tribunal did not order payment in respect of unnotified deductions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent conceded it had deducted £1,069.97 from the claimant's wages paid at the end of September 2018. The tribunal held the deduction was not required or authorised by a relevant contractual provision and ordered repayment under section 24(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,070 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had not paid the claimant in full for overtime worked at the respondent's request. It treated the shortfall of £799.68 as an unauthorised deduction and ordered payment under section 24(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £800 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to give the claimant a number of written itemised pay statements contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, because the claimant conceded that any unnotified deductions were not made in the relevant 13-week period before the application, the tribunal made no order for payment of unnotified deductions. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,870
- across all upheld claims
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.