Claimant v Blo Bar 67 Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found there was an agreement for the claimant to work 40 hours per week at an agreed hourly rate. The respondent failed to pay for all agreed hours, instead only paying for client appointment times. There was no agreement or statutory provision allowing the respondent to make these deductions. The respondent consistently underpaid throughout the 13-month employment period.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a hair stylist at a beauty salon from October 2022 to December 2023. She contended she was employed to work 40 hours per week at an agreed hourly rate (initially £9.50, later £11.50). The respondent only paid her for time spent on actual client appointments, not all time in the salon. The respondent argued hours were variable and she was paid for all hours worked, but failed to provide supporting evidence. Throughout employment, the respondent failed to provide regular pay slips and the claimant raised concerns which were dismissed.
Decision
The tribunal found there was an agreement for 40 hours per week work. The respondent made a series of unlawful deductions by failing to pay for all agreed hours across 15 months of employment. The tribunal preferred the claimant's clear evidence over the respondent's inconsistent evidence and failure to produce supporting documentation. The respondent was ordered to pay £7,164.75 in unpaid wages.
Practical note
Employers must maintain proper records of hours worked and pay agreed, provide regular pay slips, and cannot unilaterally decide to pay only for 'productive' client-facing time when a fixed hours contract exists.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201119/2024
- Decision date
- 6 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Hair stylist
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No