Claimant v Oxford Residential Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant was dismissed in a telephone call on 8 December 2023 with no process followed. The respondent failed to file a response and could not show a fair reason for dismissal. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, the dismissal was unfair as no fair procedure was followed.
The claimant was due commission of £26,736 based on sales he managed. The tribunal found it was an implied term by custom and practice that commission was paid on exchange not completion, as the claimant had previously been paid on that basis. The respondent's director Paul Preston confirmed by email that the amount claimed was 'all correct'. The respondent had no legal authorisation to withhold these sums.
Facts
The claimant worked for the respondent from August 2020 to December 2023 in a commission-based role. He was dismissed without warning in a telephone call on 8 December 2023. His contract entitled him to 1% commission on distribution channel sales but did not specify whether this was payable on exchange or completion. The respondent failed to pay him £26,736 in commission he claimed was due, which the respondent's director initially confirmed was correct by email. The respondent failed to file a response to the tribunal claim.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair as no fair procedure was followed and the respondent failed to show a fair reason. The tribunal also found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the commission. Based on the claimant's evidence of past practice and the director's email confirmation, the tribunal found it was an implied term that commission was payable on exchange, not completion, and awarded the full amount claimed.
Practical note
Employers must clearly specify commission payment terms in contracts, as tribunals may find implied terms based on custom and practice, particularly where the employer fails to participate in proceedings or file a defence.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2402521/2024
- Decision date
- 6 November 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- real estate
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No