Miss S Dolan v North East Lincolnshire Council — 2025

Miss Dolan claimed that from September 2019 she had been underpaid by three hours per week because her contractual hours had increased from 27 to 30 hours per week. North East Lincolnshire Council denied any contractual variation and said she had remained on 27 hours per week, which was also the pay she received.

The tribunal reviewed the history of changes to the claimant's hours and accepted the documentary evidence showing earlier variations, including the written change to 27 hours per week from 1 December 2015. It found that the later 2018 contract was objected to by the claimant, but in any event her hours remained 27 per week after December 2015. The tribunal preferred the documentary record and the Respondent's iTrent records over the claimant's recollection, which it found was not reliable given the passage of time and the number of historical changes.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's reliance on the September 2019 run allocation, unnamed colleagues, and her evidence about Enoch. It also found that the 16 September 2024 wellbeing and absence management form, which referred to 30 hours per week, was an administrative error by Philip Rogers and was not intended to vary the claimant's contract. The tribunal found that the form did not reflect the true contractual position.

Because the tribunal found the claimant was contractually entitled only to 27 hours per week and had been paid for 27 hours per week, it held that there had been no unlawful deduction from wages. The claim was therefore not well-founded and was dismissed. The tribunal cited section 13 and section 23(4A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in its reasons, but no remedy arose because liability was not established.