Cases6017942/2024

Claimant v Chic Accessories Ltd

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The tribunal found that the respondent did not fail to provide an itemised pay statement under section 8 ERA 1996 because the respondent did not make any payment of wages or salary to the claimant, so there was no breach of the section 8 requirement.

Facts

This is a reconsideration judgment. The claimant applied to reconsider an earlier judgment sent on 7 March 2025. The original claim concerned failure to provide itemised pay statements. The claimant had not been paid any wages or salary by the respondent.

Decision

The tribunal refused the reconsideration application on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of varying or revoking the original decision. The original decision correctly found that section 8 ERA 1996 only requires itemised pay statements where wages are actually paid, and since no wages were paid to the claimant, there was no breach.

Practical note

The statutory right to an itemised pay statement under section 8 ERA 1996 only arises when wages are actually paid to a worker.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.8

Case details

Case number
6017942/2024
Decision date
6 March 2025
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No