Oldham v Airobot Dynamics Limited — 2024

The tribunal found that the claimant had a permanent employment contract with Air Cam Pro UK Limited (ACP) from 30 September 2019 on a stated salary of £20,000, subject to an agreed arrangement that he would receive living-expense monies instead of the full salary unless the business secured a paying client. It held that the claim was presented on 6 April 2023, so deductions before 6 April 2021 were out of time under s.23 ERA 1996, and that the claimant had been paid the amount properly payable for the period up to 16 August 2021.

For the joint-venture period from 16 August 2021 to 24 November 2022, the tribunal held that the claimant was seconded to Airobot Dynamics Limited (ABD) and not employed by ABD as a separate employer for the same work. Applying an objective construction of the ABD appointment letter and annex, and the principle that one employee cannot have two employers in respect of the same work, it found that the claimant remained employed by ACP during the secondment. On that basis, ABD's failure to pay under the appointment letter was not treated as a failure to pay wages by an employer, although the tribunal accepted ABD's figure that the shortfall during the secondment was £4,000.

The tribunal also found that after the joint venture ended, ACP reverted to the earlier living-expenses arrangement, and that the claimant was due those monies for the four-month period ending May 2023 in the sum of £1,624. It held that the living-expense payments were an emolument rather than excluded expenses for the purposes of s.27 ERA 1996. The complaint of unlawful deduction from wages against the First Respondent was dismissed, and the Second Respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £5,624 in net wages.