Cases1807616/2024

Claimant v Capita plc

26 July 2025Before Employment Judge EdwardsLeedsremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The tribunal found that while the claimants had a contractual right to pay review negotiations, there was no contractual entitlement to a fixed pay progression salary increase. The rate of any pay progression was to be negotiated annually between the respondent and the CWU. Because the value of what was properly payable or deducted could not be determined, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim as it was unquantifiable.

Facts

Two technical specialist employees claimed unlawful deductions from wages arising from non-payment of annual pay progression increases between 2020 and 2024. Their employment had transferred from Telefonica to Capita in 2013 under TUPE. Prior to 2020, they had received annual pay progression increases at rates negotiated between their union (CWU) and the employer. In 2020, a pay cap meant employees earning over £28,000 received no progression. After 2020, no negotiations took place and no pay progression was paid.

Decision

The tribunal found that while the claimants had a contractual right to annual pay review negotiations, there was no contractual entitlement to a fixed pay progression increase. The rate was to be negotiated annually between Capita and the CWU. Although Capita breached its obligation to negotiate from 2021-2024, it was impossible to determine what rate might have been agreed. Because the amount properly payable could not be quantified, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Practical note

Unlawful deduction from wages claims require quantifiable sums; where contractual terms provide only for negotiation of pay rates rather than fixed entitlements, failure to negotiate does not create a quantifiable deduction claim within tribunal jurisdiction.

Legal authorities cited

Coors Brewers Ltd v Adcock & others [2007] EWCA Civ 19Agarwal v Cardiff University & anor 2019 ICR 433 CAGreg May (Carpet Fitters and Contractors) Ltd v Dring 1990 ICR 188 EATBond v CAV Ltd [1983] IRLR 360Henry v London General Transport Services Ltd [2002] ICR 910Solectron Scotland Ltd v Roper [2004] IRLR 4

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.13

Case details

Case number
1807616/2024
Decision date
26 July 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Technical Specialist (TSPEC)

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister