Cases2301640/2024

Claimant v ISS Mediclean Limited

19 February 2025Before Employment Judge Fredericks-BowyerLondon Southremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The tribunal found that the claimant's contract had been validly varied on 17 August 2020 to reflect a combined role at £12.00 per hour for 40 hours per week. The claimant had signed and agreed to the variation, and even if temporary, he performed his obligations without protest for three years, constituting variation by conduct. The claimant was paid according to his contractual entitlement and therefore suffered no unlawful deduction from wages.

Facts

The claimant worked for the respondent as a Patient Services Supervisor from 2013. In June 2020, he took on additional duties as Late Shift Duty Manager and signed a contract variation on 17 August 2020 agreeing to a combined role at £12.00 per hour (equivalent to £25,000 per annum). The claimant understood this to be temporary, but performed the dual role for three years before raising a grievance in July 2023, claiming he should be paid more for doing two roles. He brought a claim for unlawful deduction of wages while still employed.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claim. The judge found that the claimant had validly agreed to a permanent contractual variation in August 2020, which amended his job title and salary to reflect the combined role. The plain wording of the signed variation letter showed it was permanent, not temporary. Even if the claimant misunderstood this, he had performed the contract without protest for three years, constituting variation by conduct. The claimant had been paid according to his contractual entitlement and therefore suffered no unlawful deduction from wages.

Practical note

A signed contractual variation with clear language will be binding even if a party later claims to have misunderstood its effect, particularly where the employee performs the varied contract without protest for an extended period, constituting variation by conduct.

Legal authorities cited

Attrill and ors v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd and anor [2013] EWCA Civ 394Jones v Associated Tunnelling Co Limited [1981] IRLR 477 EATAgarwal v Cardiff University and anor [2019] ICR 433 CADelaney v Staples (t/a De Montfort Recruitment) [1991] ICR 331 CAArnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36Charterbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.13(3)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.13(1)

Case details

Case number
2301640/2024
Decision date
19 February 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
0.5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Patient Services Supervisor & Late Shift Duty Manager
Salary band
£25,000–£30,000
Service
14 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No