The claimant was a cleaner engaged by the respondent to clean Bridge House Apartments.  This work had begun in May 2019 and after three weeks the work came to an end on 18th June 2019.   It was agreed that it was a zero hours contract with the claimant informed at the end of each working day whether he was required for the next day or there was a text message informing the claimant that he was required for particular hours.

The issue arising between the parties was that the claimant stated that he had worked for six days prior to the work ending on 18th June 2019 and he was not paid for this work.  An initial  issue did arise around entitlement as the claimant originally stated that the days of work had taken place in July 2019, but the Tribunal accepted that it was an error.  The Tribunal considered the fact that English was not the first language of the claimant as a potential reason for this.  Accordingly, it was accepted that the claimant had worked those days.  The claimant did attempt to get the record books that were kept in the apartment block for signing out the key and returning it but he was informed that it had been taken by the respondent’s foreman and not returned.

The claimant had attempted to recover his wages from the respondent by telephoning him but the respondent hung up the phone and subsequently blocked his calls.  There was then an attempt to see if the PSNI could assist who then helpfully referred him to the Citizens Advice Bureau.  This allowed him to then bring his case to the Tribunal.  The Tribunal found that he had indeed worked on those hours and that as his evidence was uncontested, he had discharged the burden of proof for an unlawful deduction from wages.  An award was made of £490.55 based upon 59.75 hours that had been worked with the gross hourly rate of £8.21.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the extent to which some employers may seek to take advantage of workers but how the legal mechanisms can be used to provide protection.  The temerity of the employer to have the work carried out, refuse to pay, and then avoid all communication from the claimant is to be called out and greatly criticised.   There is credit due to the claimant who attempted to deal with this with the respondent before having to take court action.  Employers should be cognisant that even with more casual types of work there are legal entitlements and should ensure that the employees receive these basic rights.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website: http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/