Agency worker paid late for March shift: unlawful deduction but no compensation
An agency worker won her claim for unlawful deduction of wages after being paid late for a March 2020 shift, but received no compensation as the sum was paid in May 2020. Her claim that she should have been furloughed was dismissed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unlawful-deduction
- #coronavirus-job-retention-scheme
- #agency-worker
- #late-payment
- #deposit-order-strike-out
Key facts
- The claimant was a temporary employee of the respondent, an employment business.
- The claimant worked assignments in March 2020 but was not placed on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.
- The respondent had a policy requiring long-term assignments and client agreement for furlough, which the claimant did not meet.
- The claimant was paid late for work on 23 March 2020, receiving the sum in May 2020.
- The claimant's claims for protected disclosure detriment and indirect age discrimination were struck out for non-payment of a deposit.
Timeline
-
Claimant re-employed
The claimant started working for the respondent again as a temporary employee.
-
Last shift before lockdown
The claimant worked a shift at a Lexus dealership, which was intended to be a 14-day assignment but was terminated due to the pandemic.
-
No work available
From this date, the claimant had no work because her assignment ended and no new assignments were offered.
-
Claimant inquires about CJRS
The claimant emailed the respondent about the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and whether she could be furloughed.
-
Claimant not paid as expected
The claimant was due to be paid for previous work but did not receive payment; she chased the respondent.
-
Respondent offers new assignments
The respondent sent the claimant a list of vacancies, but she did not accept them.
-
Claimant chases March pay
The claimant reminded the respondent that she had not been paid for the 23 March shift.
-
March pay received
The respondent confirmed the payment would be made that week, and it was paid in May 2020.
-
Deposit order made
A preliminary hearing resulted in a deposit order for the claimant to pay £10 to proceed with certain claims.
-
Deposit order reminder
The respondent sent the claimant a reminder of the deposit order and payment instructions.
-
Strike out for non-payment
Employment Judge Nash struck out the protected disclosure and indirect age discrimination claims for failure to pay the deposit.
-
Final hearing
The tribunal heard the remaining claims for unlawful deduction from wages and failure to place on CJRS.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal found an unlawful deduction for late payment of March wages but no award, and dismissed the CJRS claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the respondent made an unlawful deduction from wages by failing to place the claimant on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and by paying her late for work done in March 2020.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from wages by paying the claimant late for her shift on 23 March 2020. However, as the full amount was paid in May 2020, no compensation was awarded.
The tribunal dismissed the claim that the claimant should have been placed on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS). The respondent had a policy requiring long-term assignments and client agreement for furlough, which the claimant did not meet.
Other claims for protected disclosure detriment and indirect age discrimination were struck out earlier for non-payment of a deposit order.
Lessons & takeaways
- Late payment of wages can amount to an unlawful deduction, even if the money is eventually paid.
- Agency workers on short-term assignments are unlikely to qualify for the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme if the employer's policy requires longer assignments and client consent.
- Failing to pay a tribunal deposit order on time, even for a small amount, can lead to claims being struck out entirely.
- If you are paid late, you may have a claim for unlawful deduction, but compensation may be limited if the amount is later paid.
A late payment that cost nothing
This case shows that even a successful claim for unlawful deduction from wages can result in no compensation if the money is eventually paid. The claimant, a temporary agency worker, was paid late for a shift she worked on 23 March 2020. She received the sum in May 2020, after chasing the respondent. The tribunal agreed that the late payment was unlawful, but because the full amount was paid, no award was made.
The furlough claim that failed
The claimant also argued that she should have been placed on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) when her assignment ended due to the pandemic. However, the respondent's policy required long-term assignments and client agreement for furlough. The claimant had only worked a short assignment and did not meet those criteria. The tribunal dismissed this claim, noting that there was no right to be placed on the CJRS.
What the respondent could have done differently
Paying the claimant on time would have avoided the unlawful deduction finding. The respondent could also have communicated its furlough policy more clearly to agency workers to manage expectations.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights that late payment claims can succeed even without financial loss, but compensation may be nil. It also shows the importance of complying with tribunal orders: the claimant's other claims were struck out for failing to pay a £10 deposit, which she tried to pay by bank transfer instead of cheque or postal order as required.
Similar cases
Agency worker's multiple claims struck out: no jurisdiction and out of time
An agency worker who worked for less than two years had his unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, and breach of contract claims dismissed by the tribunal, along with human exploitation allegations which the tribunal had no power to hear.
Taxi driver found to be employee and worker, awarded £5,181 for unlawful deductions
A private hire taxi driver was found to be an employee of the vehicle owner and a worker of the dispatch company. He was awarded £5,181.48 for unlawful deduction of wages, but his age discrimination claim was dismissed.
Agency mental health worker's whistleblowing claim dismissed: safety concerns not a protected disclosure
An Approved Mental Health Professional who withdrew from work citing serious danger lost his whistleblowing and health and safety detriment claims. The tribunal found his concerns did not amount to a protected disclosure or a reasonable belief of imminent danger.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.