Case 3314605/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S K Salter v D & P Coaches Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314605/2019
- Decision date
- 17 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Milner-Moore
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S K Salter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a coach driver from 3 September 2018. The respondent relied first on a pre-employment "Procedure List" and later on a signed deduction-from-wages agreement dated 22 November 2018. Four damage incidents were identified while the claimant was driving the respondent's coaches: 23 October 2018, 17 November 2018, 29 November 2018, and 15 December 2018. The respondent then deducted the claimant's entire final gross salary of £2,054.75, leaving no terminal pay when his employment ended in February 2019.
The tribunal held that the deduction from wages claim succeeded under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Procedure List was not a contract and the claimant had not given written consent to deductions under it. The later agreement signed on 22 November 2018 could not authorise deductions for the October and 17 November incidents because section 13(5) and (6) prevent a later agreement from authorising deductions for earlier conduct. For the remaining incidents, the respondent had not investigated what happened at the time, had not shown on the evidence that the damage resulted from carelessness, negligence, failure to observe rules or other fault, and had not proved that the claimant had failed to pay so as to trigger any contractual right to deduct from wages.
The working time claim also succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had accrued 3.7 days' leave, but found on the documentary record that he had taken only 3 days' annual leave in January 2019. It calculated a gross average daily rate of £116.18 from the claimant's pay and hours over the relevant period, which produced a payment in lieu of 0.7 days' untaken leave of £81.27 gross under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The claimant sought additional compensation for financial loss said to have arisen from the withholding of wages, but the tribunal made no such award because there was no specific evidence of interest charges or other financial loss. The only sums ordered were £2,054.75 gross for the unlawful deduction from wages and £81.27 gross for untaken holiday.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent was not entitled to withhold the claimant's final gross salary of £2,054.75. The Procedure List was not a contract and the later deduction-from-wages agreement could not authorise deductions for incidents that occurred before 22 November 2018. The tribunal also found that, for the later incidents, the respondent had not proved the damage was caused by carelessness, negligence or fault, or that the claimant had failed to pay so as to trigger the contractual deduction right. | Upheld | — | £2,055 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found that the claimant had accrued 3.7 days' holiday, had taken only 3 days, and was therefore entitled to payment in lieu of 0.7 days. Using an average gross daily rate of £116.18, the award was £81.27 gross, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £81 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,136
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.24 ERA 1996
- Fairfield Ltd v Skinner [1992] ICR 836
- regulation 14 WTR 1998
- sections 221-224 ERA 1996
- s.222 ERA 1996
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.