Charlotte Easton v Goldman and Fine Group Ltd — 2023

Ms Easton worked for Goldman and Fine Group Ltd from 1 December 2021 until 2 May 2023. The tribunal recorded that her unfair dismissal claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction. In the reasons, Employment Judge Housego said she had less than two years' service, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Ms Easton also claimed £1,200 unpaid wages for April 2023. She said she was paid £2,000 per month on the last day of each month, but that she received only £500 and then a further £300 for April, leaving £1,200 outstanding. Her evidence was that she had signed a contract for £1,500 per month, later increased to £2,000, although she said she had never been given a copy.

The judge questioned how the arrangement operated in relation to tax and national insurance, and Ms Easton accepted that she had previous employment and understood the difference between gross and net pay, including that tax and NI were payable on a salary of £24,000 a year. She also said she had received electronic payslips through Sage, but had not kept copies and could not now access the account. She said the payslips showed variable amounts below £2,000 and that Mr Zaman had told her this was based on lower hours.

When Ms Easton later said the contract provided for a net sum of £2,000 a month, the tribunal did not find that credible. The judge said this was inconsistent with her earlier evidence about payslips and was inherently improbable. On those facts, the tribunal found that the arrangement was tainted by illegality and dismissed the claim for £1,200 unpaid wages.