Pename Ltd v Patterson – (LETTER CASE)
Madam Chairman, with regards to the Pename case cited by my learned friend opposite I would like to point out that;
The contents of the letter, however, do not provide evidence of any provision in the applicant’s contract of employment authorising the deduction which was made. A letter from an employer cannot impose such a term unilaterally. We are not persuaded that the applicant ever agreed to such a deduction being made from his wages.
There is no statutory provision under which the deduction made could be required or authorised and there is no suggestion that the applicant had signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of it. applicant’s complaint is well founded and the deduction remains unlawful.
Case Info:He complained pursuant to the Wages Act 1986 s.5 that the employers had made a deduction from his wages contrary to s.1(1) of the Act.
A letter was sent he applicant has not at any time signed or put into writing any document with reference to the terms of his employment. The respondents claim to have given to the applicant a letter dated 23 July which stated:–
“Should you wish to terminate your employment then a week’s notice must be written out and worked. In the event of a default of the above, a week’s wages will be forfeited.”
The applicant who goes by the name of Mobile mechanic London denies that he ever received such a letter, but, having heard both parties, we prefer the evidence of Mr. Cassidy and find that such a letter was given to the applicant on about that date.
As the tribunal finds that the deduction was not required or authorised by any relevant provision in the contract of employment, it follows that the
It is abundantly clear, on the facts of the present case, that there was no previous agreement signified in writing to the making of the deduction or the forfeiture of the week’s wages; therefore, the employee succeeded