Claimant v Secretary of State for the Home Office
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant failed to demonstrate any evidence that the total amount of wages paid was less than the total amount properly payable under section 13(3) ERA 1996. As a part-time worker she was paid a higher hourly rate to compensate for not being paid for meal breaks, and there was no evidence she was compelled to work through meal breaks or entitled to be paid for doing so.
Facts
The claimant, a part-time worker for the Home Office, brought a claim for unlawful deduction of wages relating to meal breaks. The claimant was paid a higher hourly rate than full-time workers specifically to compensate for not being paid for meal breaks. The original claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, and the claimant applied for reconsideration.
Decision
The tribunal refused the reconsideration application because there was no reasonable prospect of varying or revoking the original strike-out decision. The claimant had demonstrated no legal basis for the claim and failed to show that the total wages paid were less than the amount properly payable under ERA 1996 s.13(3).
Practical note
A claim for unlawful deduction of wages requires clear evidence that the total amount paid was less than what was properly payable; a compensation structure that pays part-time workers a higher hourly rate to offset unpaid meal breaks does not constitute an unlawful deduction.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3314348/2023
- Decision date
- 18 February 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No