EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 4107186/2020 Held remotely by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on June 2021 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Mr J Perrins v Represented by: Mr R Clarke Solicitor Prestwick Aircraft Maintenance Ltd — 2021

Mr J Perrins was employed by Prestwick Aircraft Maintenance Ltd under the older form of contract. In March 2020, as the Covid-19 pandemic affected the airline industry, the respondent told staff it was seeking to reduce wages by 50% for April and May and moved to a 5-on/5-off shift pattern. The claimant objected in writing, saying he did not accept any unilateral change to his contractual pay terms and was working under protest.

The tribunal held that the old contract entitled the respondent to lay the claimant off without pay where circumstances outside its control prevented it conducting its normal business, and that the pandemic satisfied that description. But the respondent did not use the lay-off clause. Instead, it paid only 50% of the claimant's normal salary on 28 April 2020 and 28 May 2020 while requiring him to continue attending work. Construing the salary and working-hours clauses, the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to his contracted salary if he made himself available to work his contracted hours, and that nothing in the contract authorised a unilateral reduction in wages.

The tribunal also held that the deductions clause allowed deductions for sums owed to the respondent, including overpayments, but did not authorise the pay cut at issue. It accepted that the respondent was dealing with unprecedented circumstances and acting in good faith, but concluded that the law did not permit the 50% wage reduction on the terms used. The tribunal therefore found an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 ERA 1996.

Questions about whether slip-day balances and payment for the 13th week of summer shut down were overpayments were left unresolved at this stage. The tribunal said those matters were hypothetical unless and until the respondent actually made deductions for them, and it could not decide whether a future deduction would be unlawful. A remedy hearing was to be fixed if the parties could not agree the amount due for the unlawful deductions found.