Cases1309392/2022

Claimant v Muller UK & Ireland Group LLP

28 January 2025Before Employment Judge Jonathan GidneyMidlands Westremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The tribunal found that the Claimants were paid the sums properly payable to them. The negotiated agreement provided a 3.6% pay protection supplement for 2022 only to ensure no driver received less during harmonisation, not a permanent 3.6% uplift added to basic pay. The Claimants' interpretation would have created pay differentials contrary to the harmonisation purpose. No unauthorised deduction occurred.

Facts

Two HGV drivers for Muller claimed unlawful deduction of wages following harmonisation of terms across legacy driver groups in 2022. The Respondent implemented new harmonised pay rates of £14/hour and promised no driver would receive less than a 3.6% uplift for 2022. The Claimants received a supplement to bring them to 3.6% for that year, but argued the 3.6% should be permanently added to basic pay. The Respondent maintained the 3.6% was a one-off pay protection for 2022 only during harmonisation.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed both claims, finding that on a proper construction of the negotiated agreement, the 3.6% guarantee was a one-off pay protection supplement for 2022 to ensure no driver lost out during harmonisation, not a permanent uplift. The Claimants were paid what was properly payable to them, so no unauthorised deduction occurred. Their interpretation would have created ongoing pay differentials contrary to the harmonisation purpose.

Practical note

When construing pay harmonisation agreements, tribunals will apply the natural meaning of clear contractual language even if it produces a result unfavourable to individual claimants, particularly where the alternative interpretation would undermine the commercial purpose of harmonisation.

Legal authorities cited

Arnold v Britton [2015] AC 1619National Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon [2018] EWCA Civ 1390Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church [2000] IRLR 27Coors Brewers Ltd v Adcock [2007] ICR 983Lucy v British Airways UKEAT/0033/08Agarwal v Cardiff University [2019] ICR 433

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.27ERA 1996 s.23ERA 1996 s.13

Case details

Case number
1309392/2022
Decision date
28 January 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
HGV Driver

Claimant representation

Represented
No