[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Taggart v Galgorm Manor Hotel Ltd [2009] NIIT 868_08IT (14 January 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2009/00868.html Cite as: [2009] NIIT 868_08IT, [2009] NIIT 868_8IT

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 868/08

CLAIMANT: Kelli Taggart

RESPONDENT: Galgorm Manor Hotel Limited trading as Galgorm Resort and Spa

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the respondent shall pay to the claimant £1,157.63 in respect of unauthorised deductions from her wages.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Ms Bell

Members: Mr Lysk

Dr Eakin

Appearances:

The claimant appeared and was represented by her aunt, Ms J Black.

The respondent was represented by Mr D Williamson, HR Manager, of the respondent company.

1. The claimant claimed £1,234 in respect of unpaid wages and holiday pay due on termination of her employment on 3 April 2008.

2. The respondent agreed that although final pay of £1,234 was due to the claimant it had made a deduction from this in respect of training received by her at a total cost of £1,375.

3. The title of the respondent shall be amended from Galgorm Resort and Spa to Galgorm Manor Hotel Limited trading as Galgorm Resort and Spa.

Issues

4. The issues for the tribunal were as follows:-

(1) Did the respondent actually incur the training cost as per its training payback calculation of £1,375, which it sought to recover from the claimant by deduction from her final salary on termination of her employment.

(2) Did the claimant authorise the deduction in writing before the event giving rise to the deduction.

Evidence

5. The tribunal considered the claim, response, documentation handed in by the parties, heard oral evidence from the claimant and Ms Karen Armstrong, the respondent’s Spa Manager, representations on behalf of the claimant and respondent and documentation from the respondent submitted on 10 October 2008, 20 October 2008 and correspondence from the claimant dated 3 November 2008.

Facts found

6. The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Level 3 spa therapist from 2 July 2007 until 30 April 2008.

7. On Thursday 28 June 2007 the claimant attended an induction evening for all new spa therapists and assistants. The claimant was given an induction pack and was required to sign and return 3 forms to the respondent, one of which was a training payback form which provided that if the claimant left her employment within 12 months of having received training, she would have to repay a proportion of the training costs to the respondent. The claimant understood the effect of the form and signed and returned it.

8. The claimant underwent training for the first few months of her employment prior to the opening to the public of the respondent’s new spa in autumn 2007. Some of the training received by the claimant was repetitive of training that she had already had, but it was necessary for the respondent to ensure that all therapists would carry out treatments in a safe way and to required standards. The claimant received further training during her employment after the opening of the spa.

9. In Spring 2008 the claimant obtained a new job and gave her resignation to the respondent, following which the claimant worked one months notice.

10. On receiving her final pay-slip after termination of her employment the claimant became aware that the respondent had deducted £1,234 from her final salary. The claimant had not expected any deduction to be made, a number of therapists having left before her and to her knowledge not having been required to make any payment towards their training costs, and the claimant also believing that not all training would have been charged for by the training providers.

11. The respondent deducted £1,234 from the claimant’s final salary having calculated a total payback of £1,375 to be due by the claimant for training received, made up as follows:-

Date	Duration	Company	Cost	No Attendees	Cost per individual	Payback % at date of leaving	Amount to payback
02.7.07	10 days	AA	£ 800.00	8	£100.00	25%	£ 25.00
16.7.07	10 days	Ytsara	£ 800.00	8	£100.00	25%	£ 25.00
01.8.07	3 days	La Stone	£2,450.00	8	£306.25	25%	£ 76.56
13.8.07	2 days	Mavala	£ 200.00	8	£ 25.00	25%	£ 6.25
15.8.07	1 day	Lycon	£ 750.00	8	£ 93.75	25%	£ 23.44
16.8.07	1 day	St Tropez	£ 200.00	8	£ 25.00	25%	£ 6.25
17.8.07	1 day	Jane Iredale	£ 200.00	8	£ 25.00	25%	£ 6.25
22.8.07	3 days	Ytsara Refresher	£ 300.00	8	£ 37.50	25%	£ 9.38
30.8.07	2 days	AA Refresher	£ 300.00	8	£ 37.50	25%	£ 9.38
01.4.08	1 day	Calgel	£ 350.00	4	£ 87.50	100%	£ 87.50
12.2.08	2 days	AA Train the Trainer	£ 500.00	1	£ 500.00	100%	£ 500.00
14.2.08	2 days	Ytsara Train the Trainer	£ 600.00	1	£ 600.00	100%	£ 600.00

Total payback due : £1,375.00

Legislation

12. Under Article 45 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 an employer shall not make a deduction from wages of a worker employed by him unless the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a statutory provision or a relevant provision of a worker’s contract, or the worker has previously signified in writing his consent or agreement to the making of the deduction.

Application of law to the facts found

13. Where a dispute over justification of a deduction made arises the tribunal must first embark upon resolution of the dispute enquiring whether the amounts are due prior to determining whether they were authorised by prior written consent to the making of a deduction.

14. The respondent indicated at hearing although it had not brought with it any evidence to vouch the figures for training costs given in its training payback calculation that these should be available through its accounts department. The respondent was given further opportunity to submit documentary evidence to properly vouch the costs purported in its training payback calculation to have been incurred by the respondent in the provision of training to the claimant and the claimant was given opportunity to comment on the documentation received.

15. On consideration of all the evidence before it the tribunal is not satisfied that the respondent incurred the expense set out in its training payback calculation for the purpose of the deduction made. No evidence has been provided to show how the actual total figures provided by the respondent in its training payback calculation for each trainer’s event were arrived at. The documentation furnished does not satisfactorily vouch payment having been made nor matches the total figures alleged due, save £2,450 in respect of three days La Stone training justifying a deduction of £76.56.

Conclusion

16. Whilst the tribunal is of the opinion that deduction of legitimate training costs was authorised by the claimant having signed the training payback document at her induction, it does not have satisfactory evidence before it to find, on a balance of probabilities that the respondent actually incurred the training costs set out in its training payback calculation and deducted from the claimant’s final wage, save for the La Stone training. The tribunal accordingly orders the respondent to repay to the claimant £1,157.63 in respect of unauthorised deductions from her wages.

17. This is a relevant decision of the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1996.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 3 October 2008, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: