Case 3313977/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Timothy Trott v United Anodisers Ltd Heard — 2022
- Case reference
- 3313977/2021
- Decision date
- 27 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Saward
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Timothy Trott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as Technical/Quality Manager from 16 September 2019 to 30 September 2020 under a contract starting at £32,000 with a rise to £35,000 after three months. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had asked for the pay rise to be deferred until April 2020, so the increase was not treated as a lump sum but as an annual salary uplift of £250 per month. It found that pay during furlough from April to June 2020 was correctly calculated by reference to February 2020 basic pay, and that the outstanding backpay for January to March 2020 was later paid in August 2020. No financial loss was proved from the timing of that payment, and no further underpayment was established on the salary-rise strand.
On overtime, the tribunal accepted that overtime had been paid on occasions despite the contract saying it would not normally be payable, but it found no substantive evidence of any shortfall in overtime payments. It accepted that £900 had been paid as an advance of wages and that the claimant had not given prior written agreement or consent for that sum to be deducted from future wages. For that reason the August 2020 deduction was an unauthorised deduction from wages and the respondent was ordered to repay £900. The separate £15,000 breach of contract claim was withdrawn at the hearing and therefore fell away.
On bonus, the tribunal held that the claimant was eligible for the company's EBITDA bonus scheme and had in fact received £1,773.08 gross, but it rejected the argument that a further bonus sum was due by way of unlawful deduction from wages. On holiday pay, it found that the claimant had worked during the June 2020 shutdown week, so he had not taken 5 days of annual leave for which he had been paid in that month, and those days remained accrued and unpaid at termination. However, because the holiday pay claim was presented before employment ended, the tribunal held that the claim was premature and outside its jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant withdrew the £15,000 damages claim for breach of the implied term of trust and confidence at the start of the hearing, and the judgment records it as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld only in respect of the £900 deduction made on 28 August 2020. The tribunal found the money had been paid as an advance of wages, but there was no prior written agreement or consent authorising deduction from future wages. The other wage strands advanced by the claimant, including overtime, bonus and salary-rise complaints, were rejected. | Upheld | — | £900 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found 5 days' holiday had accrued and remained unpaid by termination, but dismissed the claim as premature because it was presented on 24 September 2020 before employment ended on 30 September 2020, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £900
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.24(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations
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.