Haulier told must produce payslips
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A WEST MIDLANDS haulier has been ordered to produce itemised payslips to a driver who alleges that he was only paid for six out of seven weeks, and that he is owed overtime pay.
The driver, Derek Akerman, told a Birmingham Industrial Tribunal that he had originally sought compensation for unfair dismissal against haulier P. B. Jones, but he had not pursued this as he had only been employed for seven weeks.
Mr Akerman said he had been employed at a basic rate of £65 for 40 hours. He claimed he had only been paid for the first six weeks, and that he had not been paid for any of the overtime he worked.
The Tribunal said that four of the weeks fell in the 1979/80 tax year, and three in the 1980/81 year. County Court proceedings were needed to recover outstanding payments.
It was clear that to be able to arrive at a proper statement of Mr Akerman's claim, it was necessary to know what his earnings were week by week, including overtime.
Mr Akerman said he had worked 74.5 hours overtime in the seven weeks. He had been given a P4S tax form for 1980/81, but had not been given a P60 form for 1979/80, stating the tax paid.
A letter from Mr Jones' accountant stated that week three of 1980/81 included overtime payments relating to the period of employment. According to the Tribunal, the letter did not state whether this referred to the whole of overtime, and if it did, it was hard to understand why week 50 of 1979/80 should have a £100 gross pay, when other weeks were shown as £90.
They concluded that the position could only be made clear by making an order under Section 8 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act for itemised payslips to be produced showing the gross amounts, the deductions, and the net pay in each week.
Once they were produced, the Tribunal hoped the parties would settle the matter. Failing that, it would be a matter for the County Court.
Mr Jones did not attend the Tribunal, and he was told that as this decision was deliberate, an application for a review of the decision could only be granted in exceptional circumstances.