Claimant suffered an unauthorised deduction from wages when the director halved the agreed hourly amount due to alleged issues with the work.

The claimant worked for the respondent as a cleaning supervisor from 5th July until 17th July 2024. This came about as the claimant’s girlfriend was asked if she knew anyone available for work and she suggested the claimant. The claimant and his girlfriend were added to WhatsApp groups which was used for supervisors and cleaners and to report faults. The claimant was given instructions through a WhatsApp group to attend induction.

The claimant was told by the director on 5th July to start work and he attended for a total of 9 days. The director was always in attendance and allocated duties to the claimant – the claimant was supplied with all materials.  The claimant regularly worked 8am to 7pm and he kept a log of all hours worked.  It was accepted by the Tribunal that he worked a total of 101 hours in the period of 5-16th July. The claimant’s girlfriend received a message from the director that her wages and that of her boyfriend (the claimant) would be paid into their accounts by 31st July.  They took this message as an end of the relationship which they had no problem with.

The claimant provided evidence of his bank account which demonstrated two payments from Belfast Cleans Ltd.  One of £1540 and another of £435. No breakdown was ever provided by the respondent. The Tribunal accepted that the payment of £1540 was for the girlfriend’s hours and £435 was for the claimant. When this was queried, the director stated that they were paid at half of the rate at £10 rather than £20 per hour due to a range of issues. There was no contract, but it was accepted by the Tribunal that the agreed hourly rate was £20.

The Tribunal considered the unchallenged evidence of the claimant and his girlfriend.  The Tribunal found that the claimant was a worker and that he had entered a verbal contract to undertake the work. The respondent was not a client of the claimant. The Tribunal further found that the hourly rate was £20 and having done 101 hours was entitled to £2020.  The respondent had made two payments, and it was found that the smaller payment was attributed to the claimant – that being £435. Therefore, the claimant was entitled to £1585 as it was deducted from his pay.

When engaging workers even for a short-period of time as seen in this case it is important to have the agreement in writing to ensure clarity.  The approach taken that the pay could just be reduced through the unilateral actions of the director was improper and led to this case and the finding against the respondent.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.