Claimant v Aspire Communications Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was contractually entitled to standard commission for sales made during employment but installed after termination. The respondent had agreed in October 2023 to pay such commission. The respondent's attempt to claw back accelerator commission from prior quarters was not contractually justified — there was a prior oral agreement to 'turn a blind eye' to such clawbacks, and the 2023 emails did not clearly or validly vary that agreement.
Facts
The claimant was a high-performing field sales account manager for a BT Local Business franchise. His contract stated he ceased to be eligible for commission on termination, but in October 2023 the respondent agreed to pay him standard commission for sales made before termination but installed afterwards. The respondent had previously agreed orally to 'turn a blind eye' to clawing back accelerator commission overpayments. After the claimant sent a solicitor's letter in December 2023, the respondent conducted a 'forensic' examination back to 2020 and sought to claw back thousands of pounds, refusing to pay outstanding commission. The claimant brought an unlawful deduction claim for commission on sales installed between December 2023 and August 2024.
Decision
The tribunal found the October 2023 agreement to pay post-termination commission was a legally binding contractual variation supported by consideration. The respondent's attempt to introduce clawback of prior accelerator commission was not contractually justified: the earlier oral agreement not to apply clawback had never been validly varied, the 2023 emails were vague and did not clearly communicate a change, and introducing clawback retrospectively would be a perverse exercise of discretion. The claim succeeded; the claimant was awarded £4,037.49 (being £4,638.57 less £601.08 for excess annual leave taken).
Practical note
An employer cannot unilaterally impose retrospective clawback of commission without clear contractual authority, especially where there has been a prior agreement (even oral) not to do so and the change would deprive the employee of substantial sums already earned and relied upon.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2600471/2024
- Decision date
- 26 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- telecoms
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Field Sales Account Manager
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No