Mixed notes scupper sandwich shop worker’s £400 ‘missing’ wages case

Wednesday 24 January 2024

A sandwich shop worker who asked to be paid in cash has failed to convince the Employment Tribunal that her boss put £400 less than she was owed into her wage envelope.

Central Market-based Shakes R Us worker Maria Costa said that she had wanted to be paid in cash because she was going abroad and wanted to exchange it. It was only when she reached the post office to make an exchange that she noticed her pay packet was short by £412.41, she claimed.

She returned to tell her employer, who thought that either she had lost the money between work and the post office – or she was not telling the truth. While there was no allegation of dishonesty, the employer maintained that there had not been an error.

Both sides made their case to the Employment Tribunal in October, with Ms Costa accepting that she had no way to prove her case other than her word.

Her employer produced a copy of the payslip and Social Security contribution, making the point that the amounts matched. 

The Tribunal – chaired by Advocate Ian Jones –queried whether a mistake could have been made, but the respondent “rejected this as a possibility on the basis that a mistake would not be made for such a large sum of money – being in excess of £400”, the recently published Tribunal judgment recorded.

Pictured: The case was heard by the Employment Tribunal.

The employer also noted that the cash in the envelope was Jersey currency, whereas Ms Costa’s envelope contained Jersey and English notes, which she accepted. This, it was argued, showed it was “clear something had happened with the envelope and the money between leaving the premises and returning”.

Advocate Jones said the Tribunal ultimately had to ask itself whether Ms Costa had met the standard of proof required.

“Is it more likely than not (i.e. on a balance of probability) that all of her wages were not in the envelope that was handed to her? In my view, the answer to that question was inevitably ‘no’. Ms Costa was required to prove the negative which in these circumstances was extremely difficult for her,” he said as he dismissed the claim.