Mullan v Screen Clinicalimited Michael O'Neill (Unauthorisededuction of Wages Working Time Regulations Other) [2021] NIIT 00299_20IT (08 January 2021)

Mullan v Screen Clinicalimited Michael O'Neill (Unauthorisededuction of Wages Working Time Regulations Other) [2021] NIIT 00299_20IT (08 January 2021)

The deduction of £810.00 for the diabetes training course was unlawful as there was no contractual provision or consent. The deduction of £300.00 for the pharmaceutical retention fee was lawful as it was an implied term of the contract. The claimant was entitled to additional holiday pay based on the correct...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] NIIT 00299_20IT
Parties
Claimant: Claimant; Respondent: First-named Respondent; Respondent: Second-named Respondent
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
08 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim against second-named respondent dismissed; claim against first-named respondent allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Deduction From Wages, Unpaid Holiday Pay, Employment Contract, Pay Slips
Employment Law Unauthorised Deduction From Wages Unpaid Holiday Pay Employment Contract Pay Slips

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Claimant

First-named Respondent

Respondent

Second-named Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deduction of £810.00 for diabetes training was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to additional holiday pay
  3. 3 Whether the deduction of £300.00 for the pharmaceutical retention fee was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The deduction of £810.00 for the diabetes training course was unlawful as there was no contractual provision or consent. The deduction of £300.00 for the pharmaceutical retention fee was lawful as it was an implied term of the contract. The claimant was entitled to additional holiday pay based on the correct calculation of entitlement and period worked.

Court Disposition

Claim against second-named respondent dismissed; claim against first-named respondent allowed in part.

Orders

  • First-named respondent to pay claimant £810.00 for unauthorised deduction from wages.
  • First-named respondent to pay claimant £746.26 for unpaid holiday pay.