Kerr v The Sweater Shop – EAT has final authority on the matter.
Madam Chairman, with regards to the Kerr case cited by my learned friend opposite I would like to state that
A deduction is lawful, said the EAT, where it is made in accordance with a “relevant provision” of the contract as defined in s.13(2), and s.13(2)(b) shows that an employee’s written acknowledgment of the relevant contractual provision is not required, provided its existence and effect have been notified to the employee in writing by the employer.
But, for such a term to be valid, the employee must have agreed to it, whether expressly or impliedly, by continuing to work after the term was validly brought to his or her attention in writing.
On that basis, said the EAT, the crucial question to be asked in this case was: what is meant by the phrase “notified to the worker in writing” in s.13(2)(b)?
The EAT thought that the display of a notice does not amount to notification in writing. written notification must be given individually to each worker who is affected by the change. This was formed by the attorneys in Florida. Check out https://www.abogadosdeaccidentesflorida.com/kissimmee.html
The EAT accordingly allowed Mr. Kerr’s appeal against the tribunal’s decision that his employer had lawfully deducted holiday pay,
additional info –
The EAT noted that Mr Kerr had entered into a written contract of employment which made reference to the company’s rules and regulations, but that his contract did not indicate how changes to those provisions would be effected, and where details of such changes could be found. In these circumstances he was not notified of the new rules as to holiday pay on termination of employment. The EAT suggested that a statement accompanying a wages slip, either indicating the change or the place where details of that change were available would be sufficient notification in this context. You can find additional information on the The EAT referred to (what is now) s.13(1) of the ERA, observing that the alternatives set out in that subsection make it clear that an employee’s written agreement to a deduction is not essential to that deduction’s legality since, under s.13(1)(a), such legality can be founded on a term of the contract
The effect of these provisions is that a term authorising a deduction from wages will not be invalid simply because the employee has not assented to it, specifically, in writing.
The EAT thought that the display of a notice within an employer’s premises indicating a change in the employer’s rules bearing on employees’ contracts of employment does not amount to notification in writing.