EAT Rejects Unauthorised Deduction from Wages Claim

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has rejected an appeal against the dismissal of an employee’s complaint that unauthorised deductions had been made from his wages because he did not receive an additional day’s pay or a day off in lieu when he worked on bank holidays.

The employee’s…

Apr 24, 2025

The employee’s contract of employment stated that he could be required to work on bank holidays, and that he would be paid at double time for those days and given an alternative day of leave in lieu.

When he worked on a bank holiday he received an extra day’s pay in addition to his normal monthly salary. He took the view that this only amounted to single pay and brought Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings claiming unauthorised deductions from wages. The ET found that he was mistaken about this, concluding that his normal salary included normal pay for bank holidays worked, and the additional day’s pay made it double pay.

The ET found that he could not bring a claim for unlawful deduction from wages in respect of a failure to give days off in lieu, because a day off in lieu does not satisfy the definition of wages. The ET also rejected his claim that he had not been permitted to carry over untaken holiday leave. In each holiday year he had taken his leave entitlement under Regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and the right to carry over untaken holiday leave does not apply in respect of additional leave under Regulation 13A.

He appealed against the decision in respect of failure to provide days off in lieu. Rejecting his appeal, however, the EAT could see no error of law in the ET’s determination of his complaint. He also asserted that the bank holiday term in his contract of employment and associated documents constituted a workforce agreement that permitted him to carry over unused leave, pursuant to Regulation 13A(7). However, that argument had not been raised before the ET, and the EAT did not consider that there was any good reason why it should now be permitted on appeal.

Dismissal of ‘Anti-Zionist’ Council Employee Ruled Unfair

Employers may come under external pressure to take disciplinary action against an employee, but that is all the more reason to follow a scrupulously fair procedure. The point was made by the case of a council employee who became the focus of media attention after participating in a demonstration outside Parliament. The man worked in the council’s environmental health department. His role was not considered politically sensitive and he was free to attend demonstrations and to state his political…

Asbestos Case Focuses on Chemistry Lab Heat Mats Phased Out 50 Years Ago

Anyone who worked in a chemistry lab or who was at school more than 50 years ago is likely to remember the ubiquitous asbestos mats on which Bunsen burners rested. In a sad case that vividly evoked the past, the High Court considered whether their presence can give rise to employer liability in the 21st century. The case concerned a man who worked as an NHS hospital lab technician between 1949 and 1960. He was 86 in 2019 when he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer almost…

Unfairly Dismissed? You Must Take Reasonable Steps to Mitigate Your Loss

Those who are unfairly dismissed are required to take reasonable steps to mitigate their financial loss, usually by hunting for a new job. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in the case of a woman who made not one application for fresh employment in the three years after she was sacked. The woman, who worked for a financial services company, launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings after she was dismissed, purportedly on grounds of redundancy. Following a liability…