In person For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant brought a claim for unlawful deductions from wages under section 13(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He worked first for Virgin Active and then, from 1 June 2017, for David Lloyd Leisure Limited after a TUPE transfer. His hourly rate increased from £7.72 to £8.05 on transfer, then to £8.17 from April 2018, and later the annual salary was increased again in April 2019. The tribunal heard from the claimant and from Ms Emma Johnson for the respondent.

On the P60 issue, the claimant relied on a 2017 P60 showing income of £12,878.60 and compared that with his monthly pay of £1,046, which he calculated as £12,552. The tribunal found that the difference of £326.60 was not a deduction but was pay in excess of his annual salary, likely reflecting overtime. It rejected the claimant's assumption that he was entitled to one twelfth of the P60 figure each month, because the P60 included both contractual pay and overtime payments.

The June 2017 complaint was withdrawn. The claimant had received £858.88 net for that month from Virgin Active, and the tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that the transfer month payroll was run by Virgin Active, with David Lloyd paying the wages due to Virgin Active. The claimant confirmed that he did not expect to be paid by both companies.

The overtime complaint also failed. The respondent identified and corrected an underpayment of 3 hours and later paid 9 hours for attendance at a training day on 9 August 2017. The claimant then asserted that he had been underpaid 114.83 hours by comparing his rota hours with the hours recorded by the fingerprint system. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that being on site did not necessarily mean working, and it was not satisfied that the claimant had proved he worked those hours. The complaint about irregular pay periods failed because he identified no specific sum properly payable that had not been paid. The sick pay point also failed: it was not pleaded in the ET1, and the tribunal found that the August 2018 payslip deduction related to absence on 22 July 2018, for which he had already been paid in full for July. The tribunal therefore found that the claimant had not suffered any unlawful deductions from wages and dismissed the claims.