Balandiuk v NA Services Limited: [2024] TRE 123

The claimant was employed on a zero-hour contract as a cleaner. She brought a claim relating to unpaid wages and bank holiday pay. Her employer raised a counterclaim, alleging damage to company property (specifically a vacuum cleaner) and overpayment of wages.

Claimant’s position

The claimant argued that she had not been properly compensated for work done on 1 April 2024 (a bank holiday), and that the employer had failed to provide either double pay or time off in lieu. She also challenged a £289.37 deduction made to her April wages, which the employer attributed to replacing the battery of a vacuum cleaner assigned to the claimant during her employment.

Employer’s position

The employer denied the claimant’s entitlement to holiday pay, alleging that the claimant did not work on 1 April 2024. However, no compelling evidence, such as resident testimony or CCTV footage was produced to substantiate this claim.

Regarding the wage deduction, the employer argued it was justified under a contractual clause permitting deductions for damage to property, alleging the vacuum cleaner had been deliberately damaged.

The employer further sought repayment of wages for several days when the claimant allegedly did not work their full hours, supported by claims from their spouse and discrepancies in timesheets.

Tribunal Findings

Bank Holiday Pay: The Tribunal found in favour of the claimant, accepting their testimony that they worked on 1 April 2024. The employer failed to present sufficient evidence to refute this. The tribunal ordered the employer to pay £34.92 in unpaid bank holiday pay.

Unlawful wage deduction: The employer’s deduction of £289.37 for damage to the vacuum cleaner was deemed unlawful. The tribunal concluded that the vacuum cleaner had suffered from fair wear and tear, and there was no evidence to support the employer’s claim that the claimant sabotaged the equipment after her dismissal. The tribunal ordered the employer to reimburse the full amount of the deduction.

Repayment of wages: The employer’s counterclaim regarding overpayment was only partially successful. The tribunal found that on 27^th March 2024, the claimant overstated her working hours, having only worked one hour rather than the three hours claimed. The tribunal ordered her to repay £23.28 for this overpayment.

Other counterclaims: Allegations from the claimant’s spouse about the claimant’s working hours were disregarded by the tribunal, as they were deemed to be part of an ongoing dispute between the couple. No credible evidence supported the employer’s assertion that the claimant frequently failed to work their full hours.

Comment

This case highlights the importance of accurate record-keeping and providing compelling evidence when defending wage related claims. Employers must be cautious in making deductions from wages, ensuring they are legally justified and supported by strong evidence, particularly when relying on contractual clauses. Bank holiday entitlements under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 should be adhered to, especially where work is performed on public holidays.

Recommendations:

1. Employers should ensure clear policies regarding bank holiday pay and ensure they are communicated to employees.
2. Proper documentation and independent evidence should be provided to substantiate counterclaims, especially when making allegations of time misreporting or property damage.

Full Judgement Here