Miss Rachel Dingwall v Skin HQ Ltd — 2022

The respondent did not lodge an ET3, so the case proceeded undefended. Miss Rachel Dingwall gave evidence and provided emails and payslips. The tribunal found her evidence credible and reliable. She confirmed she did not pursue a holiday pay claim, and the issues were limited to unpaid January 2022 wages and pension deductions shown on three payslips.

The tribunal found that the claimant's employment began on 27 October 2021 under a written statement of terms and conditions that provided for a salary of £21,000 per annum, monthly payment by BACS, and auto-enrolment into a contributory pension scheme. The tribunal accepted that she gave written notice on 22 January 2022, worked her normal hours through January, and that the respondent issued a January 2022 payslip showing net pay due of £1,947.49, including a £338 refund of income tax.

On the wages claim, the tribunal held that the respondent had not paid the claimant any sum for January 2022 and declared that deduction well founded under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered payment of £1,947.49. The tribunal said no separate award was made for income tax because the January payslip showed a tax rebate and the order for January wages reflected that the respondent accepted she was not liable to income tax.

On the pension issue, the tribunal found that deductions labelled as pension had been taken in November 2021, December 2021 and January 2022, but that the respondent had not paid those sums to NEST. It noted that the contract referred to auto-enrolment, but on the information available the contract did not contain the claimant's consent for deductions in the way required by section 13. The tribunal therefore held the deductions were unlawful and ordered payment of £160.22.