The Tribunal accepted that the troncmaster had carried out her role in accordance with the Policy, enabling decisions to be taken by employees about how to distribute the tips, recording those decisions, and implementing them. In carrying out that role, she had acted at the direction of the employees and not the Respondent. The Respondent was not involved in those decisions. Therefore, there was no suggestion of employer influence of or interference with the tronc system.
The Claimant was a member of the tronc system, and in addition to his hourly wage, received a share of the tips paid by customers and received by the Respondent.
The Tribunal reiterated that the purpose of annual leave under the Working Time Directive is to put the worker in a position, as regards his or her salary, comparable to that enjoyed during periods of work. Workers should not be deterred from taking their full holiday entitlement by being financially disadvantaged as a result.
The Tribunal concluded that, when read together, the references to the tronc system in the Claimant’s contract and terms and conditions provided the Claimant, not with a contractual entitlement to receive any guaranteed amount of tips, but with a contractual entitlement to receive what the Policy will give him on any given week. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that tips, when paid by customers, were ‘payable’ by the Respondent to the Claimant in accordance with the arrangement agreed via the tronc system.
The Tribunal also considered that because tronc payments were credited to Big Table’s bank account and paid by the Respondent to employees alongside their wage, and tax was deducted on a PAYE basis by the Respondent on those tips through their PAYE scheme, not the troncmaster’s, the tips were “payable by the employer to the employee” for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act.
On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that the Claimant’s periods of holiday should have included tips in addition to his salary.
The Claimant also claimed an uplift of 25% for an alleged failure by the Respondent to follow the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, but the Tribunal concluded that it would not be just and reasonable to increase any award of compensation made in the Claimant’s favour. Further, the Tribunal decided not to make an award to the Claimant under a Preparation Time Order, which may have been appropriate if the Respondent had acted vexatiously or otherwise unreasonably and/or the that the response had no reasonable prospect of success.
Firstly, it is important to note that no adverse finding was found regarding the operation of the tronc system in place and the tips paid out being disregarded from earnings and not liable for National Insurance Contributions (“NIC”). The case concerned whether the Claimant should have been paid tips whilst on annual leave.
While this ruling does not create a binding legal precedent, and we are yet to learn if the Respondent will appeal, we strongly recommend that hospitality businesses review their current tipping policies regarding contractual entitlement to tips and periods of holiday.
There are a few different situations that you could likely find yourself in, which we’ve outlined below:
Buzzacott Troncmaster Services are experts in managing fair and transparent tronc schemes, with decades of experience in the hospitality industry. We offer a number of tronc services, including an audit of your existing tronc arrangement, alongside setting up new and entirely independent schemes.
If you’re concerned about this latest ruling and would like us to conduct a full audit of your existing tronc arrangement, or you are currently not operating a tronc and would like to do so, call us today on +44 (0)20 7710 3389 or email troncmaster@buzzacott.co.uk. Alternatively, fill in the form below and a member of our team will be in touch.