ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4113568/2021 Held in Edinburgh on June 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Luke McLeish v Spacekube Ltd — 2022

The claimant brought claims that the respondent had unlawfully deprived him of pay by not paying commission and by not reimbursing mileage expenses. The tribunal treated the commission claim as a claim for wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and noted that commission would only be payable if it were properly payable under the contract or another binding arrangement.

On the commission issue, the tribunal found that the written terms and conditions only referred generally to participation in the company commission structure, but no commission structure was produced. The claimant said he had been asked to take on sales duties and had signed a document entitling him to 1% commission, or 5% of profit, but no such document was produced and the respondent denied that he had ever been employed as a salesperson. The tribunal also found the claimant’s figures inaccurate, because his six listed projects totalled £171,620 rather than £175,000, included VAT, and one sale had been withdrawn and refunded.

The tribunal further found that three of the listed contracts were for EBD or Solarlux rather than the respondent, so they were not contracts for which the respondent could be liable in these proceedings. As to the remaining contracts, the tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant had proved any contractual entitlement to commission from the respondent. That claim therefore failed and was dismissed.

On the mileage claim, the tribunal found the evidence vague and inconsistent. The claimant gave different figures for the miles allegedly driven, said he had submitted receipts, but did not produce a coherent record of mileage or a clear expense claim, and the receipts would not show business miles in any event. The respondent said it did not operate a mileage reimbursement system and instead used vans or fuel cards. The tribunal held that the claimant had not proved any entitlement to the £350 claimed, so that claim also failed and was dismissed.