Mr William McLaughlan & others v 15 Travel Limited — 2021

This was a multiple claim brought by current and former employees of Travel 2 Limited for unlawful deductions from wages arising from a Covid-19-era temporary pay reduction. The tribunal was deciding agreed preliminary issues only. It held that, by their conduct in about March or April 2020, the claimants agreed to a three-month temporary reduction in wages from 1 April 2020 to 30 June 2020, but they did not agree that the respondent could unilaterally extend that reduction beyond that period.

The tribunal found that the 27 March 2020 communications meant that an extension of the indicative three-month reduction was possible, but not certain, and that any extension would require a separate agreement. It rejected the respondent's case that the employees had already agreed in advance to an option for the respondent to extend the reduction at its sole discretion. The tribunal also found that Mary Wilson's evidence on this point was inconsistent with the wording of the respondent's own communications.

On the second issue, the tribunal found that 16 claimants in Group A objected in mid-June 2020 before the extended reduction took effect on 1 July 2020, so their conduct could not support an inference of consent. For the remaining claimants in Group B, the tribunal found that the collective grievance lodged on 11 August 2020 followed a period of organising, trade union advice, and a redundancy process, and that the delay was consistent with confusion and obtaining advice rather than acceptance of the extension. It therefore found that neither Group A nor Group B had by conduct agreed to the extension.

On waiver, the tribunal held that there was no clear and unequivocal conduct by any claimant showing an intention to waive rights to claim unlawful deductions from wages or damages for breach of contract. It also ruled that the respondent's attempted reliance on a partial frustration argument could not be raised at this hearing without an amendment, because it had not been fairly disclosed in the ET3 or addressed at case management. The judgment did not determine remedy and directed the parties to seek further directions.