Tribunal Member Mrs Paula McColl Tribunal Member Mr Robin Taggart Mrs Elaine Jackman v Mrs Wendy Lambie and Mr Derek Lambie — 2021

The tribunal recorded that the claimant's earlier disability discrimination complaint had already been struck out in a preliminary judgment, and that a breach of contract complaint had previously been held to be outwith jurisdiction. The final hearing therefore concerned the remaining unlawful deductions from wages issues only, and after the claimant revised her schedule of loss on 17 February 2021 the sum she said was due reduced to 3,183.55.

On the facts, the tribunal found that the claimant worked for the respondents from 1 September 2014 until 31 July 2019, initially as an admin assistant and later as an admin assistant/swim teacher, before moving to swim teacher only from April 2017. It found that the written terms provided for annual review of pay but did not guarantee annual increments, and that the parties' conduct after April 2017 established a term-time teaching arrangement of 40 weeks per year. The tribunal accepted that the respondents ought to have updated her written particulars after that change, but held that this did not make the payments unlawful.

The tribunal found that the admin rates paid to the claimant were 8.00 per hour for weekday admin work and 10.00 per hour for weekend admin work up to July 2018, then 8.50 and 10.00 respectively from August 2018, and that those rates matched the claimant's timesheets and payslips. It made the same finding on mileage, holding that the respondents paid 20p per mile until July 2018 and 40p per mile thereafter. On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted the respondents' method of paying holiday pay each July using average earnings over the last 12 remunerated weeks, and of pro-rating the full-time 5.6 weeks' entitlement to 4.307692 weeks for a 40-week term-time worker.

The tribunal noted the time-bar issue under the Deduction from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014 and Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton, but said the dates of the alleged deductions were not clear enough for it to determine that point as a preliminary issue. It therefore proceeded on the basis that the claim was not barred, but held that the claimant had not shown any wages properly due and unpaid. On that basis, and preferring the respondents' evidence and records, it dismissed the unlawful deductions claim.