Claimant v 440 Solutions Ltd

The claimant claimed dismissal for asserting statutory rights under section 104 ERA 1996 (right to itemised pay statements and not to suffer unauthorised deductions). However, the claimant's own evidence established that the actual reason for dismissal was Mr Powell learning the claimant was working for a third-party company (Blackrose Security), which he had concealed. This reason does not fall within section 104, so the claim fails.

The tribunal found a shortfall of £7,416 between the claimant's due pay and amounts actually paid by the respondent. The claimant complained repeatedly during employment. The shortfall could not be explained by tax/NI deductions because the respondent never registered the employment with HMRC or paid tax/NI on the claimant's behalf. The tribunal calculated the shortfall from the claimant's detailed records.

Although the claimant's contract provided 28 days' holiday per year, in practice he took no paid holidays as Mr Powell refused permission. Under King v Sash Window the claimant could carry forward untaken statutory holiday when employment ended where deterred from taking it. The tribunal calculated 6.61 weeks' accrued holiday at £441.41 per week = £2,917.72.

The claimant was entitled to one week's statutory/contractual notice when summarily dismissed on 3 June 2023 but received no notice pay. The claim succeeded for £441.41 (one week's pay).

Section 12(4) ERA 1996 claim for late provision of payslips. The respondent failed to provide the payslip dated 31 May 2023 until 21 November 2023 (over 6 months late), during which time a deduction of £254.37 was unnotified to the claimant. Given the pattern of no payslips or inaccurate payslips, the tribunal awarded the full deduction amount of £254.37 as just compensation.