Claimant v Master Trade Network Ltd

The tribunal found the respondent paid the claimant £8 per hour, below the National Minimum Wage rate he was promised. No evidence was produced of any contractual agreement for below-NMW pay. The respondent made unauthorised deductions reducing the claimant's pay below his legal NMW entitlement, contrary to Section 13 ERA 1996.

The tribunal found it undisputed that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars as required by Section 1 ERA 1996. The claimant requested written terms from his manager on multiple occasions but was ignored, and the respondent provided no proof any written terms were furnished.

The tribunal accepted the claimant raised grievances about being underpaid the NMW. Shortly after, on 28 September 2023, he was summarily dismissed with no notice or procedure. Given the close proximity between asserting his NMW rights and dismissal, the tribunal inferred this was the reason for dismissal, making it automatically unfair under Section 104 ERA 1996.

The claim for unpaid holiday pay was mentioned in the background as being part of the proceedings, but no specific findings, reasoning or award were detailed in the judgment regarding this particular head of claim.