Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Mears Ltd v Salt [2012]
Mears Ltd v Salt [2012]
Published on: 20/07/2012
Issues Covered: Contracts of Employment Pay
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
Background

The appellant company appealed against an employment tribunal's decision that there had been an unlawful deduction from the wages of the respondent employees. The respondents had claimed that they were contractually entitled to receive an "electrician's travel time allowance" (ETTA).

The respondents were electricians working for a service team previously employed by Birmingham City Council. When employed by Birmingham City Council, they were paid an ETTA which had been created in 1958 under a collective agreement to compensate for loss of opportunity to gain productivity bonuses when required to travel between depots and for costs incurred from having to travel. There had been attempts to stop these payments but they continued until 2008 by which time the claimants were working for the respondent following a TUPE transfer.

The appeal was dismissed.

An ETTA, either in its original or modern form, was a contractual allowance and not compensation for breach of contract which the appellant company's predecessors had expressly agreed to pay. A letter recording the transfer of the respondent's employment from the appellant's predecessor to the appellant explicitly stated that there was no change to the terms and conditions of employment. And finally, the respondent‟s original claim did not identify the amount or number of hours claimed for, but 74 merely complained of an unlawful deduction from wages. The figure of £11 an hour had come about as a form of evidence and was not part of the claim. Accordingly, the tribunal had not acted outside its jurisdiction because the claim was never quantified by reference to the contractual hourly rate. It was wrong to suggest that the tribunal invented a term or part of a term by concluding that the payments should be at the standard contractual rate: there was evidence before it that M's predecessor had paid out ETTAs and that the obvious hourly rate used to calculate them was the contractual rate.

Read the full judgement here.

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 20/07/2012