Mrs Alicia James v Roundel Manufacturing Limited — 2020

Mrs Alicia James was employed by Roundel Manufacturing Limited from 31 August 2010 as Sales Additions Co-ordinator. The tribunal found that the respondent made an accidental commission overpayment in November 2017, that the claimant did not report it, and that the respondent later sought repayment. It accepted that the claimant did not allege the repayment request itself was a breach of contract, and found no express or implied breach in the way the repayment terms were negotiated. The repayment arrangements were ultimately in line with what the claimant herself had proposed, and she continued under those arrangements for several months before resigning on 28 January 2019 without giving reasons in her resignation email.

The tribunal also considered the other matters raised by the claimant, including her unauthorised absence on the afternoon of 29 May 2018, the handling of the commission target figure, the temporary commission arrangements for May and June 2018, and her complaint that Mr Cole had adopted a punitive attitude. It found that the absence had not been authorised and was dealt with in accordance with company policy, that the commission arrangement for the maternity cover did not amount to a breach of contract, and that the alleged increase in the commission threshold was not shown to create a contractual breach. It further found that the complaint about Mr Cole was not persuasive and, in any event, was raised too long before resignation to support constructive dismissal.

On the wages claim, the tribunal held that there had been no unauthorised deduction. It relied on the contractual provision permitting recovery of accidental overpayments, the claimant's written agreement to deductions in the email exchanges, and the statutory position under sections 13, 14 and 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which includes statutory maternity pay within wages and excepts deductions made to reimburse an overpayment. The separate allegation of failure to follow procedure was treated as not being a freestanding legal head of claim and was dismissed.