Transcription

• Speaker #0

  Today in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Leedham and Royal Mail Group Ltd, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to consider whether the requirement to provide workers with a written itemised pay statement containing specified details at or before the time at which any payment of wages is made to them could be satisfied by providing workers with access to electronic payslips. In this case, L was employed by RM, which provided its workers with paper payslips until May 2023, when it switched over to providing workers with digital payslips accessible via a phone app or through a web browser. L unsuccessfully brought a claim alleging that the provision of digital payslips did not satisfy the Employment Rights Act 1996 requirements. The Employment Tribunal held that the statutory requirement that an itemised pay statement be given to a worker was not limited to physical delivery, but could encompass making the information available to the worker in electronic form. In reaching this decision, the Tribunal noted that L had no medical or other impediment to accessing a digital system. He owned a smartphone capable of accessing the app and could use a local library to view and print them. L appealed, arguing that the meaning of the word "given" under the relevant section was "provided with". The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed L's appeal, holding that the Tribunal had been entitled to reach the decision it did. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the legal requirement to be given an itemised payslip does not require physical delivery and can be satisfied by electronic provision of payslips. The purpose of the legal obligation is to ensure transparency of pay and to enable employees to understand and challenge deductions from their pay. Electronic payslips are therefore compliant in principle where the information is provided in an accessible, intelligible form. The focus of the statutory provisions is on substance rather than on the method of delivery, and a worker is not entitled to insist on a particular mode of delivery. Requiring a worker to make use of an electronic device to access their payslip is not materially different from historically requiring a worker to have a letterbox as a means of receiving paper payslips by post. It is a normal and ordinary everyday matter. It does not, without more, amount to the imposition of a legally objectionable condition on the exercise of the statutory right to be given payslips. The Employment Appeal Tribunal emphasised that legal compliance is fact-sensitive. It does not permit an employer to adopt a method which in substance deprives the worker of the benefit of the right to payslips. A digital payslip system may fail if it imposes real barriers or burdens on employees. On the facts of this case, the employer's digital-only system met the legal requirement. L had the means to access his payslips free of charge, but chose not to do so, and there was no evidence of coercion, cost or practical impediment. While L had sought to rely on privacy concerns arising from tracking elements to the phone app in his witness statement, they were not issued properly before the tribunal in this case, as they had not been raised in his claim form. However, The Employment Appeal Tribunal recognised that privacy concerns could arise in other cases involving digital payslips. Accordingly, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed L's appeal. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.