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

Pexels breakingpic 3305 1024x678

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 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.

Injured Motorcycle Racer Receives Judge’s Praise – But No Compensation

The courage of many accident victims is deserving of great admiration, but judges are required to put sympathy aside when considering issues of liability. The High Court staunchly observed that principle in the case of a motorcycle racer who sustained life-changing spinal injuries during a championship event. The race was in its early stages when the successful and experienced rider made contact with the rear wheel of a bike immediately ahead of him. Unable to negotiate a bend, he collided with…

HSE Encourages Employers to Tackle Workplace Stress

As part of its Working Minds campaign, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has called on employers to support workers’ mental health during Stress Awareness Month. Employers are encouraged to focus on one of the campaign’s five Rs for each week of April. These are:Reach out and have conversations; Recognise the signs and causes of stress; Respond to any risks you have identified; Reflect on actions you have agreed and taken; and Make it Routine.Employers are legally required to prevent…

You May Be Disabled in Common Parlance But Not in Law – Guideline Ruling

People have differing views as to what does or does not constitute a disability but, in employment law terms, the word has a very specific meaning. An Employment Tribunal (ET) succinctly made that point in finding that a workshop manager who suffered lower back pain and sciatica was not, in the legal sense, disabled. Following his dismissal by a design company, the man lodged proceedings with the ET complaining of, amongst other things, disability discrimination. The issue of whether his…