Claimant v Mr R Jones t/a RGSR Farms
Outcome
Individual claims
The complaint regarding unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of pension contributions paid by the employer was not well-founded. The tribunal determined that pension contributions paid by an employer to the pension provider on the worker's behalf do not fall within the definition of 'wages' under Employment Rights Act 1996, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the claim was determined on available information in the claimant's favour.
The respondent failed to give the claimant written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim succeeded as the respondent failed to present a valid response on time.
When proceedings were begun, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal found no exceptional circumstances making an award unjust or inequitable, and awarded two weeks' gross pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002.
Facts
The claimant worked for a farm operated by Mr R Jones trading as RGSR Farms. Her employment ended, and she brought claims for unauthorised deduction from wages (relating to pension contributions), redundancy pay, failure to provide written itemised pay statements, and failure to provide written statement of employment particulars. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Neither party attended the hearing conducted remotely on 31 July 2025.
Decision
The tribunal determined the claims on available information. The wages claim regarding pension contributions failed as such contributions do not constitute 'wages' under ERA 1996. The tribunal awarded £1,558.48 redundancy pay plus equal compensation for failure to pay, and £389.62 (two weeks' pay) for failure to provide written statement of employment particulars. The claim regarding failure to provide itemised pay statements also succeeded.
Practical note
Default judgments can proceed in absence of both parties where respondent fails to respond, but jurisdictional issues (such as whether pension contributions constitute 'wages') will still be determined against the claimant where the claim has no legal basis.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6023330/2024
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Hearing type
- default judgment
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Sector
- agriculture
- Represented
- No
Employment details
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No