The claimant was employed as a Chef at the Stokers Halt in Holywood which was run and operated by the respondent.  He started his role in May 2021 on an initial salary of £30,000 per annum. Things quickly moved with one week later the claimant being offered employment as ‘Sous Chef’ for a salary of £32,000 per annum and then Head Chef before the end of the month for £37,000 per annum. The claimant received his pay slip at the end of the month but was concerned by the fact that no tax deductions had been made. He had to follow this up with Inland Revenue to which he paid £760.00 for unpaid tax.  

The issue with pay slips continued with delay and receiving multiples at one time. The issues with tax continued. He approached the director of the company citing these worries as well as outlining that he was not receiving the correct rate for being Head Chef. These matters remained unresolved when in mid-July 2021 the respondent stated that they would have reduce staff in the kitchen. The claimant offered to resign in place of making other staff redundant. This was accepted with termination occurring on 30th July 2021.  

The claimant provided his pay slips as evidence. They showed that he started to receive the correct sum towards the end of his employment. However, the last pay slip was received on 23rd July and despite chasing the respondent for the pay to 30th July this was never received.  

The claimant made a number of claims relating to his contract including receiving 4 weeks’ notice. However, this point was withdrawn when the claimant accepted that he had resigned with an agreed notice of one week. However, the crux of the claim was based upon unlawful deduction from wages. The Tribunal looking at the net receipts compared to what he should have received found an underpayment of £1464,92.  As a result, an order was made for that amount. 

Interestingly, as a side point, the Tribunal proceeded with a two-member panel as the third member was unable to make it. This was done with the claimant’s permission (the respondent did not attend) and in line with the overriding objective as stated by the Tribunal.   

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the need to ensure that proper administration is followed when it comes to pay within the workplace. The judgment demonstrates a haphazard approach relating to providing pay slips, updating the rate of pay and ensuring that the proper rate of tax is deducted. This led to an underpayment with the claimant having to go to the Tribunal.