Case 2602814/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Harvey Platt v Powell and Barns Group trading as Powell and Barns Media Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602814/2021
- Decision date
- 17 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Omambala QC
- Venue
- Nottingham ET via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Harvey Platt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent’s name to Powell and Barns Group Limited trading as Powell and Barns Media Limited. It found that the claimant interviewed on 29 April 2021, attended an induction on 13 May 2021, and later signed a written statement of terms and conditions on 3 June 2021. Although he said he had been working from 13 May 2021, the tribunal held that his employment under the contract started on 3 June 2021 and that the earlier period was an unpaid induction, so the breach of contract claim for work done between 13 May and 3 June 2021 was dismissed.
The contract provided for pay at £10 per hour, commission on paid orders, one week’s notice during the probationary period, and holiday pay. The tribunal accepted Ms Powell’s evidence that commission depended on a booking form and a paid order being completed. It found that the claimant did not complete any booking forms or generate any paid orders, so he was not entitled to commission.
On the wage and holiday calculations, the tribunal found that the claimant worked 176 hours under the contract and was entitled to £1,760 for wages. It also found that he was entitled to £244 holiday pay and £80 notice pay, making £2,084 properly payable in total. The tribunal recorded that he had received £1,866 and concluded that there was a shortfall of £218, which constituted an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that the deduction was not required or authorised by statute, by the contract, or by written consent, and that there had been no overpayment of wages.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim for breach of contract in respect of work done between 13 May 2021 and 3 June 2021 was dismissed. The tribunal found the contract of employment commenced on 3 June 2021 and there was no evidence of an agreement to work and be paid before that date. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld in respect of wages, holiday pay and notice pay. The tribunal found the claimant was not entitled to commission because he did not complete booking forms or make paid orders, so that part of the claim was dismissed. The award was for the shortfall found by the tribunal. | Upheld | — | £218 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £218
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 13(3) ERA 1996
- section 14 ERA 1996
- section 27(1) ERA 1996
- section 230(3) ERA 1996
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.