We look at this case now because the issue of whether itemised pay slips have to be given to employees in hard copy was raised as a question under our First Tuesday email this week and Employment Judge Neil Drennan QC pointed out that the Anakaa case covered this point in a Northern Ireland Court of Appeal case last year. The case also made comment on another issue that comes up regularly with Legal-Island customers - what to do about employees who hand in sick notes prior to disciplinary or grievance meetings.

In relation to this second point, the Court made the following comment:

"The appellant was suspended from work on 2 April 2012. He was given a suspension letter on that date and on 4 April he was sent a letter with various pieces of information asking him to attend a disciplinary hearing on 6 April. He did not do so – instead he provided a sick line from his general practitioner dated 6 April which referred to “hypertension, work-related stress”. Neither of those conditions is a disability within the meaning of section 1 of the 1995 Act. The respondent then rescheduled the disciplinary hearing for 23 April but because of the sick line and a statement from the general practitioner it offered the appellant a number of options. These included conducting the meeting at his home or in a location convenient to him, conducting the meeting via telephone, the appellant providing a written statement or the appellant assigning a representative to answer questions on his behalf. This range of options constituted an entirely reasonable response to the information which had been provided about his health by the appellant..." [para 16]

In relation to whether hard copy pay slips are required or not, the employer accepted that hard copy pay slips were not issued but argued that online versions were made available and training was given to all staff on how to access same. 

The Court said it had some unease about whether the respondent had complied with the strict provisions of Article 40 of the 1996 Order i.e. the requirement to give a written itemised pay statement. However, its attention was drawn to section 46(1) of the Interpretation (NI) Act 1954 which provides:

“’Writing’, ‘written’ or any term of like import shall include words typewritten, printed, painted, engraved, lithographed, photographed or represented or reproduced by any mode of representing or reproducing words in a visible form.”

The Court concluded:

"We accept that in the context of current standards of information technology the requirement to provide a written itemised pay statement is complied with if words are reproduced in a visible form on a computer screen. To that however we would add this caveat – if an employer is aware that an employee is having difficulty of any sort in actually accessing a payslip in this way, the employer is obliged to find an alternative method of providing information in accordance with the statutory requirement..." [para 22]

The judgement includes further interesting remarks about whether or not anonymity should be granted in tribunal proceedings:
http://bit.ly/1aJVG1J