Case 3207456/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Bell v NIBS Buses Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3207456/2021
- Decision date
- 23 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hook Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Bell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr David Bell worked for NIBS Buses Ltd as a bus driver from 11 November 2019 until he resigned on 30 November 2021. He brought a wages claim saying that he had been paid less than he was properly entitled to receive. The agreed position was that he was paid £10.71 per hour and could earn a 72p per hour bonus for driving hours if he met the relevant safe and fuel-efficient driving standards, making £11.43 per hour when the bonus was paid.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant met the driving standards and that the respondent had no evidence to contradict his evidence on that point. It also accepted that between 1 September 2020 and 30 November 2021 he worked 2,482 hours, of which 1,861 were driving hours and 621 were non-driving hours. The claimant argued that he should have been paid the bonus on those 621 non-driving hours as well, which would have produced an additional £447.12. The respondent’s case was that the bonus only applied to driving hours under the contract the claimant had signed.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s contract was the one he had signed, together with the related pay and bonus documents, and that the new contract introduced in September 2020 for new drivers was not automatically available to existing employees. It found that there was no implied term, and no other legal duty, requiring the respondent to tell the claimant about the new contract or to move him onto it if he wished. In reaching that conclusion, it distinguished Scally, University of Nottingham v Eyett, and Ibekwe, and held that the claimant had no right to switch to the new terms without the respondent’s consent.
The tribunal therefore held that the applicable contract remained the claimant’s existing contract, under which the bonus applied only to driving hours, and that he had been paid the sums due under that contract. The claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant was paid in accordance with his existing contract and that there was no implied term or other legal duty requiring the respondent to tell him about the new contract or transfer him onto it. The alleged unpaid amount was £447.12 for non-driving hours, but those hours were found not to attract the bonus. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Scally and ors v Southern Health and Social Services Board and ors
- University of Nottingham v Eyett and anor
- Ibekwe v London General Transport Services Ltd
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.