Ronnie Blair v George Burr
[2024] EAT 100
Buildmaster Construction Services Ltd v Ghada Al-Naimi
25 June 2024
[2024] EAT 101
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A company was sued for underpaying an employee. The company claimed they had a verbal agreement to lower the pay, but the judge didn't believe them because there was no written evidence. The appeal court agreed with the judge's decision and said the judge gave enough explanation for the decision.
Key Facts
- •Buildmaster Construction Services Ltd appealed two Employment Tribunal decisions concerning unlawful wage deductions from Mrs Ghada Al-Naimi's salary.
- •The Tribunal found that Mrs Al-Naimi was underpaid £9,750.
- •The Respondent argued that there was a verbal agreement to vary the contract and reduce her salary due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- •The Tribunal found no written agreement to support the salary reduction.
- •The appeal focused on whether the Tribunal erred in requiring a written agreement to vary the contract and in failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision.
Legal Principles
Unauthorised deductions from wages are governed by Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA).
Employment Rights Act 1996
Section 13(3) ERA: A deficiency in wages paid is treated as an unauthorised deduction.
Employment Rights Act 1996
Section 13(1) and (2) ERA sets out the conditions for lawful deductions: authorisation by statute, relevant contractual provision (with written notification), or prior written worker agreement.
Employment Rights Act 1996
An oral variation of a contract can change what is 'properly payable' under s.13(3) ERA; no further formalities under s.13(1) and (2) are then required.
Case Law
Tribunal decisions must provide adequate reasons to explain why parties won or lost, enabling appellate review.
Practice Direction for First Tier Tribunals, Reasons for decisions
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Employment Tribunal correctly applied a two-stage test: (1) determining what was properly payable, and (2) assessing whether the deduction met the ERA’s formalities. The Tribunal’s finding that the verbal agreement to vary the contract was not proven, coupled with the lack of written evidence, justified the decision. The reasons given, though concise, were adequate given the context of a short hearing with one unrepresented party.