EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000781/2024 Hearing at Edinburgh via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on September 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Mr B v Metix Limited — 2024

Mr B Palrasu claimed that Metix Limited had unlawfully deducted wages by failing to pay him at the higher salary of £27,280 per annum from January 2024 to 2 May 2024, when his employment ended. The tribunal accepted that Mr Mourao had told the claimant that his salary would rise to meet Skilled Worker visa requirements and that an email of 4 February 2024 referred to the increase and a deferred salary adjustment, but it also found that no signed authority letter was produced and that the claimant’s payslip evidence still showed a salary of £24,000 per annum.

The tribunal found as a fact that Mr Mourao agreed with the claimant that he would be paid the higher amount, and that the UK Border Agency letter of 30 January 2024 recorded a salary of £27,280 and confirmed the visa grant. However, it held that Mr Mourao did not have express authority from the respondent to make a binding pay agreement, noting the evidence that such decisions would have been made by Mr Delaney and Mr Smith and that the respondent was in severe financial difficulty at the start of 2024.

The tribunal also rejected any argument that Mr Mourao had ostensible or apparent authority to bind the respondent. It said the claimant knew Mr Mourao was not a director and understood that he did not have authority to approve the increase without board approval. It referred to Puntis v Isambard Brunel Junior School and concluded there was no evidence that the respondent had held Mr Mourao out as having authority to agree the pay rise or to tell the UK Border Agency that the claimant’s salary was £27,280.

Because no binding agreement for the salary increase was established, the claimant’s apparent agreement to defer payment did not affect the outcome. The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant had not shown an unlawful deduction from wages and dismissed the claim.