Mr G Hindman v Transafe Logistics Ltd — 2024

Mr Graham Hindman was employed by Transafe Logistics Ltd as an HGV driver from 9 November 2023 on pay of £120 gross per day. The respondent paid an unsolicited £500 advance to drivers on 9 November 2023 after the former employer entered administration, and at a meeting on 13 November 2023 Mr Stephen Garbett said that payment was an advance of wages to be repaid from later sums recovered from the former employer. In January 2024 the claimant was told that work had dried up and that he would be paid at a lay-off rate of £31 per day; when the respondent later issued a payslip showing net £422 due for 8 to 12 January 2024, it withheld payment and relied on the earlier £500 advance. The claim also included accrued holiday pay said to be due at termination.

On the wages element, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he had not been given or told about a Statement of Main Terms of Employment in a way that made it contractual, so there was no proved written contractual term authorising deduction. It nevertheless held that the £500 payment was an advance of wages and therefore fell within the section 14 ERA 1996 concept of an overpayment. The tribunal also applied section 25(3) ERA 1996 and followed Robertson v Blackstone Franks Investment Management Ltd [1998] IRLR 376, holding that because the claimant had actually received the advance, the respondent could take it into account and the non-payment of the £422 did not amount to an unauthorised deduction.

On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant resigned on 15 January 2024 and that, over the period of employment, he had accrued five days' holiday entitlement. It accepted that he had access to payslips during employment, and those payslips showed payment for eleven days of holiday pay, including four days paid at bank holiday rate. The tribunal held that the claim was governed by Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and that, because the claimant had already been paid for more holiday than he had accrued, no further holiday pay was outstanding. The respondent had also referred to section 1 ERA 1996 compliance issues, but the tribunal noted those were not part of the claim and would not in any event have supported a standalone award. The claim was dismissed in full.