Claimant v Painting Maintenance Project Management Ltd — 2020

The tribunal found that the claimant had worked for Neptis (Media) Ltd from June 2016, but was asked in October 2019 to move to the respondent, Painting Maintenance Project Management Limited. It found that from that point he worked exclusively for the respondent, was told he would now be paid by the respondent, and did not receive payslips from November 2019 onwards. The respondent argued that the money was owed by NM rather than by it, but did not lead any oral evidence or documents in support of that position.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence as credible and reliable. It rejected the suggestion that his claim to the Redundancy Payments Office showed that he remained employed by NM, finding that such a claim was not inconsistent with his case that his employment with NM had ended and that he was only seeking sums he believed were owed by NM at that earlier stage. It also noted that the claimant had been replaced at NM, that NM's call centre ceased operations in January 2020, and that he continued working for the respondent after that point.

On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant was employed by the respondent from October 2019 and was employed by it when the sums claimed were incurred. It therefore upheld the unlawful deductions claim under s.13 ERA 1996 in respect of wages, bonus, and holiday pay, and awarded £3,562, £2,000 and £556.40 respectively. It also held that the expense items were excluded from the definition of wages under s.27(2) ERA 1996, but that the failure to pay them was a breach of contract, for which it awarded £265 compensation.