Post Office clerk loses claim over COVID-19 hours cut: contract clauses allowed short-time working
A Post Office counter clerk who refused a split-shift offer after his hours were cut due to COVID-19 has lost his claim for unauthorised deductions. The tribunal held that the employer's contractual mobility and short-time working clauses authorised the reduction.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #short-time-working
- #contractual-flexibility
- #refusal-to-relocate
- #covid-19-financial-pressures
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Post Office Counter Clerk with a 30-hour week contract.
- On 1 August 2021, the respondent reduced hours due to COVID-19 financial pressures.
- The respondent offered the claimant 30 hours per week split between New Malden and Wembley.
- The claimant refused the offer because he felt unfairly treated compared to other staff.
- The tribunal found the respondent had contractual rights to reduce hours and require mobility.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started working for ZCO Ltd at New Malden branch for 30 hours per week.
-
Contract signed
Claimant signed a contract including mobility and short-time working clauses.
-
Hours reduction announced
Respondent reduced employee hours due to COVID-19 financial pressures.
-
Reduction communicated
Respondent informed employees, including claimant, of the reduction.
-
Claimant complained
Claimant raised grievance about reduced hours and poor facilities at Wembley.
-
Grievance outcome
Respondent offered 8 hours at New Malden and balance at Wembley.
-
Claimant's proposal accepted
Claimant proposed 22 hours at New Malden and 8 at Wembley; respondent accepted.
-
Offer confirmed in writing
Respondent confirmed the 30-hour split in writing.
-
Claimant refused offer
Claimant refused the offer, alleging unfair treatment.
-
Claim presented
Claimant filed an unauthorised deductions claim for £928.41.
The legal issue
Whether the employer made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages by reducing his hours and pay, or whether the reduction was contractually authorised under the employment contract and handbook.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim in full. It found that the respondent had contractual rights under the claimant's employment contract and handbook to reduce hours due to a temporary shortage of work and to require mobility between branches. The claimant's refusal to accept the offered split of hours did not render the deductions unauthorised. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check your contract and employee handbook for clauses on short-time working, mobility, and flexibility – these can allow employers to reduce hours or change location.
- If you refuse a reasonable alternative offered by your employer, you may lose the right to claim unauthorised deductions for the hours not worked.
- Employers facing financial pressures can rely on contractual flexibility clauses to reduce hours, provided they act in line with the contract terms.
- Claiming unauthorised deductions requires proving that the employer had no contractual right to reduce pay – if the contract allows it, the claim will fail.
When contract clauses trump fairness concerns
This case highlights how important the small print of an employment contract can be. The claimant, a Post Office counter clerk with three years' service, saw his hours cut from 30 to 8 per week in August 2021 as ZCO Ltd responded to COVID-19 financial pressures. He felt unfairly treated compared to colleagues and refused an offer to split his time between New Malden and Wembley to make up 30 hours. But the tribunal found that the employer had contractual rights – including a short-time working clause and a mobility clause – that authorised the reduction.
What the employer did right
ZCO Ltd had included clear clauses in the contract and handbook: a 'shortage of work' clause allowing short-time working with reduced pay, and a mobility clause requiring travel to other shops within reasonable distance. When the claimant raised a grievance, the employer engaged with him, offered a split that gave him 22 hours at his preferred branch and 8 at Wembley, and confirmed it in writing. The tribunal noted that the claimant's refusal was based on a perception of unfair treatment, not on any contractual breach by the employer.
Why the claim failed
The legal issue was straightforward: had ZCO Ltd made unauthorised deductions from wages? The tribunal said no, because the contract allowed the reduction. The claimant's argument that he was treated less favourably than others did not convert a contractually authorised reduction into an unlawful deduction. For employees in similar situations, the lesson is clear: if your contract gives your employer the right to cut hours or require mobility, a claim for unauthorised deductions is unlikely to succeed unless the employer acts outside those terms.
Similar cases
Operations manager with asthma placed on short-time work during lockdown: constructive dismissal and disability discrimination
An operations manager with asthma was constructively dismissed after being placed on short-time work for raising health and safety concerns during the first COVID-19 lockdown. The tribunal awarded £27,871 in damages.
Charity cut pay by 50% without consent: unlawful deduction claim succeeds
A community accountant with 21 years' service had her pay and hours halved without her agreement. The tribunal ordered the charity to repay £16,893 in unlawfully deducted wages.