Claimant v Malaysia
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the Respondent made unlawful deductions by retrospectively reducing the Claimant's agreed July 2020 salary increase. While the Claimant agreed to revised terms from 12 November 2020 onwards (which was not vitiated by duress), sections 13(5) and 13(6) ERA 1996 prevent a variation from authorising deductions for work already performed before the variation. However, a jurisdictional issue under section 23(2) regarding time limits was identified, requiring further determination before any award can be made.
Facts
The Claimant, a driver employed since 2001 by the Malaysian High Commission, received a salary increase in July 2020 (from £389 to £468 per week with backpay from January 2019). In November 2020, the Respondent declared this increase void, implemented a new salary scale placing him at £452 per week, and sought to recover alleged overpayments. The Claimant signed the new terms after being told refusal would result in reversion to pre-July salary and loss of long service gratuity. He contacted ACAS in April 2021 and filed his claim in July 2021, remaining employed throughout.
Decision
The tribunal found the Respondent made unlawful deductions by retrospectively reducing wages already earned under the July 2020 agreement. While the November 2020 variation was valid going forward (duress was insufficient to vitiate consent), sections 13(5) and 13(6) ERA 1996 prevent backdated deductions for work already performed. However, a potential time limit issue was identified requiring further determination before any award can be made.
Practical note
Even where an employee agrees to a salary reduction, sections 13(5) and 13(6) ERA 1996 prohibit employers from retrospectively reducing wages already earned under a previous contractual arrangement, regardless of whether the variation itself is valid going forward.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2203565/2021
- Decision date
- 29 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Malaysia
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Driver
- Service
- 24 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No