Andrew Woodcock, a driving examiner, took the DVSA to an employment tribunal to reclaim the lunch money he had spent during work. He argued that he should be reimbursed for the 15 meals he had purchased between May and July of the previous year, amounting to £77.55. However, his claim of unlawful deduction from wages was dismissed by the tribunal, as it was found that he was expected to cover the cost of his lunches at his own expense. The tribunal heard that Mr. Woodcock believed he was entitled to claim for his lunches when required to work from locations other than his original center in Southampton. However, as all the test centers within his assigned cluster were considered his normal workplace, he was not entitled to claim for expenses incurred while working from these locations.
Mr. Woodcock worked for the DVSA in Southampton within a test center cluster that included the Winchester Driving Test Center. He was provided with a Driving Examiner Candidate Pack that outlined the agency’s policy on expenses, stating that employees would be given sufficient notice of any travel away from their home test center and could claim expenses in line with the Travel and Expenses policy. During the recruitment process, Mr. Woodcock was informed that travel to and from workplaces within the cluster and his home would be at his own expense. This information was reiterated in the contractual documents, indicating that expenses for travel within his cluster would not form part of his wages payable by the DVSA.
The driving examiner’s claim for reimbursement of lunch expenses stemmed from the perception that working from locations other than his home test center in Southampton entitled him to claim for meals when travel was involved. However, the DVSA contested his claim, arguing that all test centers within the cluster were considered part of his normal workplace. Therefore, Mr. Woodcock was not eligible to claim expenses for meals purchased while working at these locations, including Winchester, as this was within his cluster. The tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the DVSA, determining that the expenses claimed by Mr. Woodcock were not part of his contractual wages and, therefore, not subject to reimbursement.
In a separate news story, Boots slashed the price of its beauty Easter egg, offering 10 products for £8. This limited-time offer included a variety of beauty items packaged in an Easter egg-shaped box, providing customers with a cost-effective way to try out different beauty products. The deal was available both in stores and online, attracting customers looking for discounted beauty products. This promotion by Boots aimed to make beauty products more accessible and affordable to a wider audience, appealing to customers looking for budget-friendly options for their beauty routines.
