Mr S Glover v Alsager Town Council: 1301762/2023

Case number: 1301762/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN Claimant AND Respondent Mr S Glover Alsager Town Council HELD AT Birmingham ON 28 February 2024 EMPLOYMENT JUDGE Choudry Representation For the claimant: Mr S Harding (Counsel) For the respondent: Ms E Greening (Counsel) JUDGMENT The claimant’s claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract fail and are dismissed. REASONS Background 1. Following a period of Early Conciliation commencing on 17 October 2022 and ending on 8 November 2022, the Claimant issued a claim for unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract which was received by the Employment Tribunal on 30 January 2023. Case number: 1301762/2023 2. The respondent is a Town Council. Adjustments for the Claimant 3. The Claimant has anxiety, dyslexia and ADHD. At a preliminary hearing held on 19 September 2023 before Employment Judge Edmonds the Claimant requested some adjustments. Mr Harding confirmed that the adjustments recorded by Employment Judge Edmonds in the case management order were still the ones that were required by the Claimant and no other adjustments were needed. 4. The Claimant was reminded to ask for a break whenever required. The Claimant was accompanied by his mother, Mrs Rita Glover, and I confirmed that Mrs Glover could assist the Claimant with locating documents but she could not answer on his behalf during his evidence. Evidence and documents 5. At the start of the hearing Mr Harding indicated that the Claimant wished to call Alexander Daniel Haddon as a witness. Neither the Tribunal nor Ms Greening had a copy of the witness statement for Mr Haddon. Mr Harding explained that he had sent it through to the Tribunal at 10.11am today together with an amended statement for the Claimant. Ms Greening did not object to the Claimant submitting an amended statement. 6. Ms Greening objected to the calling of a further witness at such late stage when she had no advance notice that the Claimant intended to call a witness. Ms Greening referred to the Claimant’s repeated non- compliance with the case management orders and the fact that the Respondent had indicated that it would not object to a postponement. Ms Greening indicated that she was not objecting on the basis of prejudice to the Respondent. After hearing representations from Mr Harding I determined that it would be in line with the overriding objective for permission to be given to the Claimant to adduce evidence from Mr Haddon subject to Ms Greening being given some time to take instructions on his evidence. 7. In the event I only heard evidence from the Claimant and from Nicola Clarke, clerk to the Respondent. I did not hear evidence from Mr Haddon as he was not able to attend the hearing in the afternoon due to a doctor’s appointment which he had not informed Mr Harding of. I did, however, read Mr Haddon’s statement and attached such weight to it as was appropriate bearing in mind that Ms Greening did not have the opportunity to test Mr Haddon’s evidence through cross examination. 8. I was also presented with a bundle of some 138 pages. At the commencement of the hearing I sought confirmation from the parties as to whether the bundle was agreed. This was confirmed to me. Case number: 1301762/2023 Issues 9. I set out below the list of issues which the Tribunal needed to consider and which were agreed with the parties at the preliminary hearing (case management) with EJ Edmonds on 19 September 2023. Mr Harding confirmed that the issues were agreed and that the Claimant accepted he had received payments from the Respondent in respect of all but one of the wage slips in the bundle which he would need to give credit for. 10. The issues are: Unlawful deduction of wages 10.1 were the wages paid to the Claimant from 6 October 2021 to the date of his P45 (around July 2023) less than the wages he should have been paid. The Claimant says that he was offered, and accepted, a role which was advertised at £18,426-£18,795. The Claimant says he accepted the role to start week commencing 6 October 2021 and he should have received his full wage from this date. 10.2 In addition, did the respondent fail to pay the Claimant sums due in respect of using his own equipment to carry out his work. The Claimant says it was agreed that he would be paid for this and claims the sum of £4,315.00 broken down as follows: 10.2.1 cleaning the interior and exterior windows – 12 occasions at £240 = £2,880.00 10.2.2 traditional interior clean = £35.00 10.2.3 cleaning full gutter blockage, flood clean up = £390.00 10.2.4 full gutter clean = £240.00 10.2.5 jet wash Civic Centre = £360.00 10.2.6 use of Claimant’s vehicle to collect and drop off a full kitchen = £150.00 10.2.7 replacement printer for a printer borrowed and never returned = £260.00 10.3 Was any deduction required or authorised by statute? 10.4 Was any deduction required or authorised by a written term of the contract? 10.5 Did the Claimant have a copy of the contract or written notice of the contract term before the deduction was made? 10.6 Did the Claimant agree in writing to the deduction before it was made? 10.7 How much is the Claimant owed? Case number: 1301762/2023 Breach of contract 10.8 Was the Claimant an employee of the respondent within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996? 10.9 Did this claim arise or was it outstanding when the Claimant’s employment ended? 10.10 Did the Respondent do the following: 10.10.1 offer the Claimant a role which he...