Case 2602366/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Saunders v Veolia ES (UK) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602366/2022
- Decision date
- 30 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Saunders
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant claimed that he should have received an additional daily payment under clause 28 of the Way Forward Agreement for every day worked before May 2022, by virtue of holding and using a driver assessor qualification. The respondent's position was that the payment was due only when the claimant was required to fulfil the Driver Assessor/Trainer job description in Appendix B, and that this did not happen until May 2022.
The tribunal found that before May 2022 the claimant carried out driver assessments only on an ad hoc basis and did not fulfil the whole Appendix B job description, particularly the elements concerning development of tools, processes, and training initiatives. It accepted the respondent's evidence that those elements were not required of the claimant before May 2022 because another supervisor was responsible for them, and that the respondent's requirements changed when a resourcing gap arose.
Interpreting clause 28 as a whole, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had to take on responsibility for the Appendix B job description, be willing and able to undertake the required training, and be required to carry out the duties in that job description. Because those requirements were not satisfied before May 2022, the additional pay was not properly payable for that period, and the unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim was not well-founded because the additional daily driver assessor/trainer payment was not properly payable before May 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Arnold v Britton contractual interpretation
- Charterbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Agarwal v Cardiff University
- Delaney v Staples
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.