In the case of Chandrashekarappa v Wipro Ltd, the claimant worked in a sales role and participated in an incentive arrangement known as a "kitty bonus". Employees were informed that they could receive up to 1% of invoiced revenue generated from new business, subject to approval by the relevant sector lead.
The claimant played a significant role in securing a major contract with the John Lewis Partnership (JLP). Shortly afterwards, his line manager sought approval for payment of the bonus and the relevant sector lead approved the request.
Several weeks later, however, the employer began suggesting that additional approval was required from more senior management. At the same time, it introduced a cap of $150,000 on the payment. The Tribunal found that this was the first time the cap had been mentioned and that there was no evidence that it had formed part of the original arrangements communicated to employees.
The claimant was eventually paid the capped amount rather than 1% of the first year's revenues from the contract, which would have been 516,082. He brought a claim for unlawful deductions from wages, arguing that he was entitled to the full amount.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim. Although it accepted that the cap and additional approval requirements emerged after the original approval had been given, it concluded that the claimant's entitlement had not crystallised at that stage. In the Tribunal's view, no legal entitlement...
New York Packaging II LLC, operating as Redi-Bag USA, and its CEO Jeffrey Rabiea have agreed to pay $7.3 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations brought by the U.S. Department of Justice a...