1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
Pay deductions broke the law
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Glasgow Employment Tribunal ordered Path, Ayrshire-based Master Concrete to pay former driver William Lightbody a total of £489.14 after deciding that the company had unlawfully deducted that amount from his wages. The Tribunal said that Lightbody had worked for the company froml May until 30 July 2001, after intimating his decision to resign from 31 July. He had been underpaid £78.88 in May and June 2001.
On his payslip for July the company had deducted 2461.54, which represented pay for nine days when Lightbody did not attend work for various reasons. On some of those days he had simply told the company that he was not coming into work. There was never any discussion about whether these days were to be taken as holiday or unpaid leave.
A director of the company admitted that if Lightbody had remained in its employment, and he had been a satisfactory employee, no issue would have been raised over his absences on the various dates.
The Tribunal concluded that the company had decided to deduct money from his wages simply because it was annoyed at Lightbody for leaving as he did. He left on 30 July so he was not entitled to pay for 31 July. One day's pay amounted to £51.28 which, deducted from £461.54, left an unlawful deduction o1841026.
To arrive at the sum to be paid to Lightbody the company was bound to adjust it for income tax and national insurance and was entitled to take into account all sums paid for July, including an advance of £600.
The company argued that various amounts paid to Lightbody during his employment should be deducted from the award. However, Lightbody never agreed in writing to any such deductions being made, and the company was advised that no such claim could be considered by the Tribunal.