Mr Martinez v Prestige Maintenance London Group Limited — 2021

The tribunal heard the claim in the respondent's absence. No bundle or witness statements were provided. The claimant gave evidence with an interpreter, and the tribunal decided to proceed after attempts to contact the respondent by telephone were unsuccessful. The case concerned a claim for unpaid wages brought after early conciliation.

The tribunal found that the claimant was a worker for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It accepted that he had replied to an online advertisement, met the respondent's manager, agreed to provide handyman services personally, and had no written contract. The tribunal also found there were no agreed contractual terms permitting deductions from wages.

On the facts, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had not been paid for nine days of work at £100 per day. It also recorded that the respondent had kept the first week's wages as a deposit against loss or damage, without having previously mentioned that to the claimant. The tribunal rejected any suggestion that the claimant was unqualified or had misrepresented his abilities.

The tribunal held that the unlawful deductions from wages complaint was well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £900. It did not make any award in relation to the claimed materials cost of £50.91, stating that this would constitute expenses rather than wages.