Andrew Woodcock took the government agency to an employment tribunal in an attempt to claim back the lunch money he had spent on daily food – but his claim of unlawful deduction from wages was discarded
A driving examiner attempted to sue the DVSA regarding more than £77.55 he spent on lunches.
Andrew Woodcock took the government agency to an employment tribunal in an attempt to claim back the lunch money he had used. The driving examiner said he should be reimbursed for all of the fifteen meals. But his claim of unlawful deduction from wages was discarded after it was discovered he was expected to cover the lunches at his own expense.
The tribunal heard Mr Woodcock started working for the DVSA in November 2021, within a test centre ‘cluster’ in Southampton, Hants, including Winchester Driving Test Centre, Hampshire. He was given a Driving Examiner Candidate Pack, which said: “We’ll give you sufficient notice of any travel away from your home testing centre and you can claim expenses in line with our Travel and Expenses policy.” During the recruitment process, Mr Woodcock was told that ‘”travel to and from workplaces within the cluster and your home will be in your own time and at your own expense”.
He said money for lunch from his employer on 15 occasions between May and July last year, cost him £77.55 The panel heard Mr Woodcock believed he was entitled to claim for his lunches when he was asked to work from locations other than his original centre in Southampton. But travelling to and from Winchester did not exempt him as it was within his “cluster”, according to the DVSA. All the test centres in his cluster were deemed to be his normal workplace and he was therefore not entitled to the claim, the tribunal was told.
Dismissing his claim, Judge Nicholas Roper said: “The expenses claimed by [Mr Woodcock] are limited to the individual instances where he was required to travel to Winchester within his cluster. There is no indication in the relevant contractual documents that this would ever form part of the wages otherwise payable to him.”
