Claimant v Buridan Network Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent deducted £2,153.76 for 14 days' work without authorization. The claimant's unsigned contract prescribed acceptance by signature, which the claimant never provided. The claimant's conduct in working without signing constituted a counter-offer excluding the deductions clause, which the respondent accepted by allowing him to work and paying him.
The parties agreed the claimant had 1 day of accrued but unused holiday at termination. The respondent failed to pay £153.84 owed under regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The tribunal found the claimant committed gross misconduct by accusing the senior manager of lying during a heated telephone conversation, taken in context of prior performance issues. This fundamental breach entitled the respondent to summarily dismiss without notice, so no notice pay was due.
Facts
The claimant was employed as an electrician from 25 March to 20 May 2024 on a daily rate of £153.84. He was given but did not sign a contract of employment which prescribed acceptance by signature and included a deductions clause. On 20 May 2024, during a heated telephone conversation about a customer complaint regarding poor workmanship, the claimant accused the managing director of lying. He was summarily dismissed. The respondent withheld his final pay of 14 days' work (£2,153.76) and 1 day's holiday pay (£153.84).
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant succeeded on unlawful deduction of wages and holiday pay claims totalling £2,307.60. The deductions clause was not binding because the contract prescribed acceptance by signature which the claimant never provided. However, the notice pay claim failed because the claimant's conduct in accusing the managing director of lying, in context of prior performance issues, constituted gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal.
Practical note
A contractual deductions clause that prescribes acceptance by signature cannot be enforced through implied acceptance by conduct where the employee never signed the contract, even if they continued working.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6010404/2024
- Decision date
- 31 December 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Service
- 2 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No