Mr J Perrins v Prestwick Aircraft Maintenance Ltd: 4107186/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 July 2021 |
| Date | 06 July 2021 |
| Citation | 4107186/2020 |
| Published date | 24 February 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) 5
Case No: 4107186/2020
Held remotely by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 22 June 2021
Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn
10
Mr J Perrins Claimant
Represented by:
Mr R Clarke
Solicitor
15
Prestwick Aircraft Maintenance Ltd Respondent
Represented by:
Ms D Dickson
20 Solicitor
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
25
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows –
(a) The claimant suffered an unlawful deduction of wages by the respondent.
(b) In the event that the parties are unable to agree the amount to be paid by 30
the respondent to the claimant in respect of that unlawful deduction, a
remedy hearing will be fixed.
35
4107186/2020
Page
2
REASONS
1. This case came before me for a final hearing, conducted remotely by means
of the Cloud Video Platform. Mr Clarke appeared for the claimant and Ms 5
Dickson appeared for the respondent.
2. This is one of eight cases which, subject to one matter described below, raise
identical issues. The other seven claimants are –
Name Case number 10
Mr L Aitken 4107166/2020
Mr B Geddie 4107170/2020
Mr A Harding 4017173/2020
Mr H Masterman 4107178/2020 15
Mr R McGregor 4107179/2020
Mr A Scott 4107189/2020
Mr H Sussams 4107191/2020
3. No Order had been made under Rule 36 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of 20
Procedure 2013 for a lead case. However, the parties had agreed that (a) Mr
Perrins should be the lead claimant to avoid the need for all of the claimants to
give much the same evidence and (b) my determination on liability should allow
the parties to resolve the other seven cases.
4. The “one matter” referred to above related to the terms of the contracts of 25
employment of the eight claimants. Two of them (Mr Perrins and Mr
Masterman) had an older form of contract than the other six. I will refer to these
two forms of contract as the “old contract” and the “new contract”.
30
4107186/2020
Page
3
Issues
5. These were as follows –
5
(i) What sum of wages was properly payable by the respondent to the
claimant on each particular occasion (meaning 28 April 2020 and 28
May 2020)?
(ii) What sum in wages was actually paid by the respondent on each such 10
occasion?
(iii) If the sum actually paid on each occasion was less than that which was
properly payable, there has been a deduction from wages. If there has
been such a deduction was the respondent n evertheless authorised to 15
make it because it was required or authorised to be made by virtue of
relevant provision of the claimant’s contract?
(iv) Did the provisions in the claimants’ contracts of employment entitle the
respondent to pay the claimants (a) a salary for hours worked and (b) 20
no salary for hours they did not work?
(v) If it is decided that the terms in the claimants’ contracts of employment
did not entitle them to pay the claimants in the way that they did, the
respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from wages. If this is 25
the case what amount should the Tribunal order the respondent to pay
to the claimant representing the amount of the deduction? Should this
amount take into account and give credit for any amounts such as slip
days and additional paid time given to the claimants by the respondent
during the annual summer shutdown? 30
To continue reading
Request your trial