Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 2512/06

CLAIMANT: Richard Stewart

RESPONDENT: The Ulster Gazette (Armagh) Ltd

DECISION

The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant has not suffered an unlawful deduction of wages contrary to Article 45 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

The respondent accepted that it had not provided an appropriate written statement of employment but the claimant and respondent agreed that no further Order was required from the tribunal in this regard.

The claim for sick pay was paid in full prior to the hearing and was not an issue.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Ms F Oliver (Sitting Alone)

Appearances:

The claimant appeared and was represented by Mr Teddy Martin.

The respondent appeared and was represented by Mr Alan Ferguson of Personnel & Training Services.

1. Sources of Evidence

The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from Mr Richard Burden on behalf of the claimant. The tribunal heard evidence from Jonathan Taylor, Richard Baker and Mike Maxwell on behalf of the respondent. The tribunal also received an agreed bundle of documents from the claimant and from the respondent.

2. The Claim and the Defence

The claimant claimed an unauthorised deduction from his wages from April 2006 to date on the basis that he had not received an increase in salary in accordance with his contract. The respondent denied that there had been any unauthorised deduction on the basis that the claimant was not automatically entitled to a salary increase merely a salary review and he had therefore been paid at the appropriate rate.

3. The Issues

Was the claimant contractually entitled to an increase in salary in April 2006.

If so did he suffer an unauthorised deduction of wages?

If the claimant did suffer an unauthorised deduction of wages what is the quantum of that deduction.

3. Findings of Fact

The claimant commenced employment as an editor with the respondent in June 1997.

The claimant signed a contract of employment with the respondent on 17 December 2001.

The contract contained the clause- "salaries are reviewed annually in April".

Each year negotiations took place between management in the respondent company and the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and a pay increase was agreed.

Editors were not included in the negotiations as they are not members of the NUJ.

For the period of employment between June 1997 and April 2006 the claimant received an annual salary increase identical to the increases negotiated by the NUJ.

In April 2006 the claimant did not receive any salary increase.

The claimant was not informed that he was not receiving a salary increase until he received his pay slip.

The claimant gave evidence that he had tried to contact Mr Jonathan Taylor to discuss the failure to receive a salary increase but had not been able to contact him. The tribunal did not find this evidence convincing. We note that the first time this issue was raised in writing by the claimant was by letter of 18 September 2006, almost five months after the event. This letter followed a letter of 20 June 2006 from the respondent to the claimant confirming already identified areas of concern regarding the claimant's performance of his duties. We find the delay in raising the matter formally to be indicative of the fact that the claimant was not surprised by the failure to award a salary increase.

Prior to the annual salary review the respondent made it clear to the claimant that it was unhappy with the claimant's work performance.

The salary review was carried out by the Board of Directors of the respondent company.

The tribunal was not entirely happy with the evidence from the respondent regarding the salary review as there was some ambiguity as to how the manager's views had been communicated to the Board of Directors. However, taking the evidence in the round and considering also the minutes of the meetings of 3 February 2006 and 13 April 2006 the tribunal accepts that the Board of Directors of the respondent reviewed the salary of the claimant and decided not to award a salary increase.

4. The Law

1. Article 45 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 gives an employee the right not to suffer an unauthorised deduction from his wages.

2. Article 55(1)(a) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 states that the remedy for an unauthorised deduction is an application to the Industrial Tribunal.

5. Application of the Law and Findings of fact to the Issues

The tribunal finds that the claimant was entitled to a salary review in April each year. We do not consider that a salary review necessarily implies that there will be an increase. If this had been the case, the contract could have stated this. We believe that the respondent carried out a review of the claimant's salary and decided not to make an increase. There was no contractual obligation on the respondent to make an increase. In the absence of a contractual obligation to increase the salary, we find that there has been no unauthorised deduction of wages. This claim is dismissed.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 21 February 2007, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: