Stanbridge (t/a Exact Vending Services) v Brookes

An employer relying on a contractual authorisation for a wage deduction must satisfy the written requirements in section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. An oral explanation of a handbook does not establish that the contractual term, or its existence and effect, was notified to the worker in writing.

Sections 1 to 7 of the Act do not apply where employment continued for less than one month. An Employment Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to award compensation for failure to provide written particulars in such a case. A jurisdictional objection may be raised for the first time on appeal, particularly where the Tribunal introduced and determined an unpleaded claim without notice to the absent respondent.

The employee claimed arrears of pay following nine days' direct employment. The Employment Tribunal upheld an unlawful-deduction claim and awarded £346.15. Although no claim concerning written particulars had been pleaded, the Tribunal also found a breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded two weeks' pay.

The employer appealed. He relied on a handbook as authorising the deduction. He also contended, for the first time in the appeal grounds, that the short duration of employment excluded the statutory obligation to provide particulars. The central issues were whether the deduction was contractually authorised in the required written form and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make the additional award.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The appeal against the unlawful-deduction award failed. The employer had not established a statutory defence under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The handbook provision was not shown to have been supplied to the employee before the deduction, and an oral explanation could not satisfy the requirement that the existence and effect of a relevant contractual provision be notified in writing.

2. The award for failure to provide written particulars was quashed. By section 198, sections 1 to 7 did not apply because the employment lasted less than one month. The Tribunal consequently had no jurisdiction to find a breach of section 1 or make an award for it.

3. The employer could rely on that jurisdictional point despite raising it for the first time in the appeal grounds. The Tribunal had itself raised and determined an unpleaded claim while the employer was absent, without notice or an opportunity to answer it. In those circumstances it was especially important for the Tribunal to identify statutory defences to the claim it had introduced.

4. The remaining award to the employee was £346.15 for unlawful deductions from wages.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the appeal against the written-particulars award and quashed it; dismissed the appeal against the unlawful-deduction award.
• Employment Tribunal, Birmingham: Upheld the employee's claim for unlawful deductions and, on an issue not pleaded by her, awarded additional compensation for breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.