Industrial tribunal rules prominent Cropwell Bishop farming business made unlawful deduction from employee's wages

An industrial tribunal has ruled a prominent farming business made an unlawful deduction from an employee's wages.

Judge Broughton ordered that Samworth Farms Ltd pay former employee Rob Hudson £1,000 for overtime worked for the period January 2021 to April 2021; and £1,677 for unpaid wages for the period from August 9, 2020, to April 30, 2021.

Mr Hudson issued a claim following a period of ACAS early conciliation to recover alleged underpayments of wages namely overtime payments.

At the start to of the tribunal hearing, the claimant said he had checked his calculations and between January to April 2021, he had worked 117 hours and believed he was entitled to unpaid overtime not of £1,000 but £1,521.

Samworth defended the claim on the basis Mr Hudson agreed to a new contract in July 2020 which meant that overtime was no longer payable and that there had never been any agreement to pay £6.50 for evening remote support work.

Mr Hudson was employed as an anaerobic digester plant operator reporting to the assistant farm manager at a farm at Cropwell Bishop until his employment was terminated on notice on June 1, 2021. Biodegradable waste material is broken down at the site by anaerobic digestion, to make bio-gas.

He was issued with a contract of employment when he joined. His core hours were not in dispute, 7.30am to 4.30pm Monday to Friday.

His salary was £27,000 per year, paid monthly, and based on 40 hours’ work per week for 52 weeks. Any time worked beyond the normal eight hours would be paid as overtime at the rate of £13 per hour.

Time sheets had to be completed each week.

Mr Hudson produced time sheets that included break times (one hour in total). The evidence of the claimant was that the system was a ‘mess’, to start with the office manager was supposed to deduct the one hour from the time recorded, however, employees complained that they were not getting one hour but the time was still being deducted.

The system than changed so that employees had to amend their own time recording using an app on their mobile telephones called Time Doctor.

The claimant was not sure but believed the system changed in or around January 2021. Mr Broughton found that would seem consistent with the time sheets which record consistently a 30 minute deduction for a lunch break until January 13, 2021, when the times recorded varied.

The tribunal, on a balance of probabilities, accepted the claimant’s account that the time sheets did not accurately record the actual break times taken prior to January 2021.

Mr Hudson complained that Samworth Farms Ltd company director Russell Price introduced changes to his contract without his agreement in July 2020, something which was disputed.

It was not in dispute that his salary was increased in July 2020 from £27,000 to £30,000. The additional £3,000 the claimant understood was to compensate him for any overtime worked. It is not in dispute that £3,000 is equivalent to 230 hours of overtime annually (£13 per hour multiplied by 230 equating to £2,990).

Mr Hudson wanted to remain on the original contract terms, he was concerned that if he worked more than 230 hours per year, he would receive less remuneration and preferred to remain on a lower salary and be paid for the actual overtime hours he worked.

Mr Price gave evidence under cross examination that he changed the contract terms, to simplify systems and because the claimant’s “overtime seemed random and out of control” and by putting him on a salary and not paying overtime, Samworth did not have to control the hours the claimant worked, however, his evidence was that they “didn’t want to put people out of pocket, wanted to pay people fairly” and his evidence is that when they had a meeting, the claimant agreed to the changes.

The tribunal found on the evidence of both the claimant and Mr Price that the increase in salary of £3,000 was introduced on the basis that this covered 230 hours of overtime.

Mr Price gave evidence that overtime hours changed throughout the year, in winter the claimant would be expected to work less overtime and therefore he felt that the overtime would “equalise over 12 months” and that it was hoped the claimant’s attitude would improve with the new package.

However, the tribunal found Mr Hudson had been short-changed.