Claimant v NISBETS LTD
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent accepted that it owed the claimant £970.59 in unpaid wages from June 2024. The claimant had been suspended on full pay from 3 June to 17 July 2024, but due to a payroll error, deductions for sickness absence were made and never corrected. The respondent acknowledged the underpayment after the claim was filed.
The tribunal found that the search policy was expressly stated to be non-contractual. The claimant alleged four breaches relating to search procedure, but the tribunal found none of them were breaches of the policy's actual terms. As there was no identifiable breach of the policy, there could be no breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the respondent and worked night shifts in a warehouse. On 21 May 2024, during a random security search for theft and suspected drug use, he refused to allow security to search his wallet, citing privacy. He was suspended and subjected to disciplinary proceedings, receiving a 'record of conversation' but no sanction. He was suspended on full pay but due to a payroll error, his June 2024 pay was short by £970.59. He resigned on 30 July 2024 and brought claims for unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract.
Decision
The tribunal upheld the claim for unlawful deduction of wages for £970.59, which the respondent accepted was owed due to a payroll error during suspension. The breach of contract claim failed because the tribunal found the search policy was expressly non-contractual and none of the alleged procedural failures were breaches of its actual terms, so there could be no breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Practical note
Policies expressly stated to be non-contractual will not create enforceable contractual rights, and alleged breaches of such policies cannot ground a breach of implied term claim unless the conduct falls outside the policy's own parameters.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 1.9 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6009055/2024
- Decision date
- 1 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- NISBETS LTD
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Salary band
- £25,000–£30,000
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No