In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant’s claim arose from a suspension imposed on 22 January 2018 after an incident on 13 December 2017 at the respondent’s mental health unit. He said he sounded the alarm, helped to stop the altercation, and reported the matter to his line manager. He also said he had no access to the computer system used for incident reporting. The tribunal recorded that, at this preliminary hearing, the claimant confirmed he brought no race discrimination claim and that the case proceeded as a claim of unauthorised deductions from earnings only.

The claimant said the suspension lasted about four months and that he lost about £16,000, based on a pattern of work before and after the suspension. The respondent relied on clause 13 of the bank worker contract, which allowed a precautionary suspension in cases of alleged misconduct, and argued that the claim did not disclose a viable cause of action and should be struck out. Judge Manley had earlier made an order requiring the claimant to explain why the claim should not be dismissed for lack of reasonable prospects.

Employment Judge Smail held that the claimant had materially complied with Judge Manley’s order. The judge accepted that the key issue was whether, on the facts, the respondent’s power to suspend had been exercised rationally and whether the short investigation required by the contract had been carried out in a way that justified the suspension and loss of pay. Because there had been only limited reference to the law and no findings of fact about what actually happened, the tribunal said it could not conclude that the claim was unarguable.

The tribunal therefore refused to strike out the case and also refused to order a deposit, stating that the matter required a full evidential inquiry and detailed consideration of the applicable law. The judgment does not determine liability or remedy; it simply allows the unauthorised deductions claim to proceed to a final hearing.