Miss D Teyfik v Blo Bar 67 Limited — 2025

Miss Teyfik worked for Blo Bar 67 Limited as a hair stylist from 24 October 2022 until 28 December 2023, when she resigned with immediate effect. The dispute was whether she had agreed to work 40 hours per week and be paid for those hours, as she said, or whether she was paid only for variable hours actually worked on client appointments, as the respondent contended.

The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence. It found inconsistencies in Mrs McLeod's evidence, noted that the respondent had not produced the Forest Booking System records or the text messages said to show variable working hours, and accepted the claimant's account that she was employed on a full-time basis for 40 hours each week. The tribunal found there was no agreement allowing the respondent to pay only for appointment time with clients rather than the full hours spent at the salon, and no contractual or statutory basis for the reductions.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was paid at the national minimum wage, initially £9.50 per hour and then £11.50 per hour from 1 April 2023. On that basis, the amount properly payable for the agreed hours was £380 per week at £9.50 per hour and £460 per week at £11.50 per hour. It found that the respondent did not pay the claimant for the agreed hours each month and that there had been a series of unlawful deductions totalling £7,164.75, with the final deduction on 29 December 2023. The claim was presented in time after ACAS early conciliation.

Separately, the tribunal declared that the claimant had not been given itemised pay statements in accordance with s.8 ERA 1996 at or before the time her salary was paid. No compensation was awarded for that failure.