Claimant v IKEA Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the IPE level, benefits and bonuses were not express or implied contractual terms, therefore there was no contractual entitlement to these payments and no unauthorised deduction from wages occurred.
The claim for amendments to employment particulars under section 11 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded. The tribunal determined that the IPE level, benefits and bonuses were not contractual terms requiring inclusion in written particulars.
Facts
The claimant, Mr Oakes, was employed by IKEA Ltd and brought claims relating to IPE level, benefits and bonuses. He contended these were contractual terms that should have been included in his employment particulars and that he suffered unauthorised deductions from wages. The respondent argued these were discretionary benefits not forming part of his contract of employment.
Decision
The tribunal determined that the IPE level, benefits and bonuses were not express or implied contractual terms. As a result, both the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and the claim for amendments to employment particulars under section 11 Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well-founded and were dismissed.
Practical note
Employers can successfully distinguish between contractual entitlements and discretionary benefits where there is insufficient evidence of contractual intent regarding bonuses and benefits.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1305688/2023
- Decision date
- 1 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- IKEA Ltd
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No