Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 1065/07

CLAIMANT: John Lester Magill

RESPONDENT: WPB Contracts & Sons

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that:-

(i) It is declared that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the sum of £2,633.14. The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £2,633.14 in respect of that deduction of wages.

(ii) The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £624 in respect of outstanding travel expenses, and £11.97 in respect of a memory card.

(iii) The claim for payment in respect of two Saturdays worked by the claimant in March 2007, relates to events which occurred after the claimant's employment with the respondent had terminated. Consequently the claim is outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal and no order is made in respect of it.

(iv) The claims are dismissed in respect of bank charges, and interest on sums due at 5% over base rate.

(v) The total sum awarded to the claimant is therefore £3,269.11.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Mr Travers

Panel Members: Mr Crawford

Mr Irwin

Appearances:

The claimant was not represented and appeared in person.

The respondent was not represented and did not appear.

REASONS

Issues

1. The tribunal must consider whether or not the claimant has been subjected to an unauthorised deduction of wages and/or a breach of contract in respect of payments due to him from the respondent.
2. The claimant asks the tribunal to consider claims for unpaid wages; unpaid travel expenses; pay in lieu of notice; bank charges in respect of late payment of wages; the cost of a camera memory card; interest on outstanding sums at 5% over base rate; and pay in respect of work done by the claimant after the termination of the contract of employment.
3. The claim form was presented to the tribunal on 16^th May 2007. The respondent failed to present a response form by the required date of 6^th July 2007. No representative of the respondent appeared at the hearing and no written submissions were made on the respondent's behalf. In all the circumstances, the tribunal decided to hear the claim. In reaching its decision on the claim, the tribunal has considered all the information made available to it by the parties. The claimant gave evidence to the tribunal in support of his claim.

Facts

4. The following facts represent the conclusions of the tribunal on the basis of the available evidence and documentation.
5. At all material times, the respondent carried on business as a construction and civil engineering company. In or around June 2006, the claimant was employed by the respondent as a contracts manager.
6. The claimant was paid by the respondent a salary of £2,633.14 per month net. In addition the claimant was contractually entitled to a monthly car mileage allowance at the rate of forty pence per mile travelled on the respondent's business. The claimant was also entitled to be reimbursed by the respondent in respect of out of pocket expenses properly incurred on the respondent's behalf.
7. The respondent was late in paying the claimant's salary for the months of December 2006 and January 2007.
8. In February 2007 it was agreed between the claimant and the respondent that the claimant's contract of employment would terminate at the end of that month. At that time, both parties contemplated that the claimant would take up employment with a client of the respondent on 1^st March 2007. In due course, the claimant did so.
9. The respondent has failed to pay the claimant's salary for February 2007. The claimant requested payment on a number of occasions. At one point the claimant was told by the respondent's Mr Philip Beers that the respondent was having cashflow difficulties and that he would be paid when the respondent was paid.
10. During February 2007 the claimant travelled 1560 miles by car on the respondent's business. The respondent has failed to pay the claimant his motor expenses of £624 (1560 x 40p) for the month.
11. At the respondent's request, in March 2007 the claimant did some work for the respondent on two Saturdays. No rate of payment was agreed between the parties for that work. The claimant seeks payment of £120 in respect of the work he did on those Saturdays.
12. Towards the end of his employment with the respondent, the claimant purchased a memory card for a camera for use in the course of his work. The memory card has been retained by the respondent. The memory card cost £11.97. The respondent has failed to reimburse the claimant for the cost of the card.

Law

13. Unauthorised deduction of wages – Part IV of The Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 ["ERO"] provides that an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of a worker employed by him, save in certain excepted circumstances. None of those excepted circumstances are relevant to the facts of this case.
14. Contract claims – Under the Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, the tribunal's jurisdiction in a contract claim is limited to claims which arise or are outstanding on the termination of the employee's employment.

Conclusion

15. The claimant has satisfied the tribunal that his contract of employment with the respondent terminated at the end of February 2007. The respondent is therefore liable to pay the claimant's wages of £2,633.14 net for the month of February.
16. The tribunal is also satisfied that, in breach of contract, the respondent has failed to pay him £624 in respect of his travel expenses for the month of February. In further breach of contract, the respondent has failed to pay the claimant £11.97 in respect of the camera memory card.
17. The claim for one month's pay in lieu of notice is rejected by the tribunal. The contract of employment was terminated, not by the respondent, but by mutual agreement. In the course of reaching that agreement there was no discussion between the parties of any payment in respect of a period of notice. The claim for pay in lieu of notice must fail.
18. On the information available to it, the tribunal is not satisfied that the claim for payment in respect of the two Saturdays worked in March 2007 falls within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal. The tribunal's jurisdiction in claims for breach of contract is limited to those claims which arise or are outstanding on the termination of the employee's employment. The claimant's employment terminated at the end of February 2007, but the claim in respect of Saturdays relates to March 2007. Accordingly no order is made in respect of that aspect of the claim.
19. On the evidence and information submitted, the tribunal is not satisfied that recoverable claims are made out in respect of bank charges, nor in respect of interest on sums due at 5% above base rate. Accordingly those aspects of the claim are dismissed.
20. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 14^th September 2007 at Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: