Claimant v All Seasons Philipburn Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant claimed he was not paid for hours he worked as recorded on the clocking system. The tribunal found his evidence vague, unconvincing, and inconsistent. He had been dismissed for dishonesty (theft), clocked implausible hours (almost 24 hours on one occasion), and could not clearly explain late departures or calculate his claimed losses. The tribunal concluded he had not proven on the balance of probabilities that he suffered unlawful deductions.
Facts
The claimant worked as a team leader for one month on a zero hours contract at £12.60 per hour. He claimed he was not paid for approximately 78.75 hours worked, relying on a clocking system. The respondent disputed the accuracy of the clockings and argued he stayed late unnecessarily. The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct (theft) on 25 August 2024. The respondent paid some disputed hours just before the hearing but contested the remainder.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim. It found the claimant's evidence vague, inconsistent, and unconvincing. He had clocked implausible hours (including almost 24 hours on one day), could not explain late departures, and had been dismissed for dishonesty. The tribunal concluded he had not proven on the balance of probabilities that he was entitled to the wages claimed.
Practical note
Where wage claims depend on disputed time records, a claimant's credibility is critical — past dishonesty and implausible hours can fatally undermine a claim even where the employer's supervision was lax.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001537/2024
- Decision date
- 28 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Team Leader
- Service
- 1 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No