Mr L Gaviano v Glyn Hopkin Ltd Full Merits Hearing — 2023

The tribunal first dismissed the respondent's strike-out application. It found the claimant had not received all correspondence because the respondent used an incorrect email address, that he had not intentionally failed to engage with the proceedings, and that it would not be proportionate to strike out the claim. The claimant also confirmed that, despite references in the claim form to unfair dismissal and discrimination, he only intended to pursue unlawful deduction from wages and notice pay.

On the substance of the deduction claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was employed as a vehicle service technician and was dismissed on 18 March 2022 during probation after the respondent said he had failed to tighten wheel nuts on a customer's car. The respondent relied on a contract term and handbook provisions allowing deductions where the company incurred loss because of carelessness, negligence, failure to follow procedures, or unsatisfactory work. The tribunal found, however, that the claimant did not admit responsibility for the wheel nut incident when he met Anthony Kent, and that he consistently disputed liability in later emails.

The tribunal also found that the respondent produced no documentary evidence showing that the claimant was responsible for the incident, and no written record of the dismissal meeting or evidence from Anthony Kent. It concluded that the respondent had not fully investigated the incident and had not shown that the claimant worked on the car, that he was the technician responsible, or that he caused the loss. The deduction of £467.96 from wages was therefore unlawful, and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay that gross sum.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's remaining claim about unpaid wages and notice pay. It found that he had been paid for 19 working days in March 2022, which covered 1 March to 25 March 2022, and that this included pay up to his last working day on 18 March 2022 plus one week's pay in lieu of notice as required by the contract. It therefore held that the gross salary and notice pay paid for March 2022 were correct.