By Jo Seery, Professional Support Lawyer
Background
Mr Leedham, a Royal Mail employee, challenged his employer’s decision to move away from paper payslips to a digital-only system. From June 2023, payslips were made available through an app or online portal, with paper copies provided only to workers with a disability or medical condition preventing digital access.
Mr Leedham argued that the provision of access to electronic only payslips did not meet the legal requirement under the Employment Rights Act 1996 for workers to be “given” a written payslip. He argued that, applying the natural meaning of the word "given", an employer is required to provide or deliver a physical copy of a payslip to the worker, rather than simply making it accessible or available electronically. If that was what was the legislation really meant it could have made that expressly by using clear language - “given access to.”
Moreover, he argued that a system which requires workers to possess a suitable device, download software or otherwise utilise their own property in order to obtain the pay information made it a conditional right of access rather than the provision of pay information. In doing so the burden of being able to access the pay information shifted from the employer to the employee.
An Employment Tribunal rejected his claim, finding that digital access to payslips met the requirements of the statutory right. Mr Leedham appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Outcome
The EAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s decision.
It considered that the word “given” had to be interpreted to give effect to its purpose. The purpose, as it was described in Ridge v HM Land Registry [LELR Issue 394] is to enable a worker to see how their pay is made up and check for unauthorised deductions. On that basis it found that the legal requirement to provide a payslip does not depend on physical delivery. Instead, the key question is whether the worker is given access to their pay information in a way which was transparent.
While an employer’s system, which meant that workers would incur costs in accessing their pay statement, might not comply with the right, that was not the case here.
On the facts, the payslips were available electronically, free of charge, and the claimant had the means to access them but chose not to do so. There was no evidence that the system created real barriers for employees.
However, the EAT stressed that this is a fact-sensitive assessment, and a digital system could fail to comply if it imposed genuine obstacles, costs, or disadvantaged workers.
Comments / Key takeaways
This decision confirms that employers can, in principle, rely on digital-only payslips without breaching their legal obligation to provide a written pay statement.
However, the ruling is fact sensitive. Where digital systems create practical barriers—whether through cost, lack of access to technology, or other disadvantages—employers may still fall foul of the law.
During the course of argument, the EAT considered -but did not determine the point Mr Leedham raised during the appeal, that requiring workers to use their own devices raised human rights issues namely the Article 8 right to respect for family life. While this point was not fully argued the EAT commented that where the provision of pay information involves tracking or extracting data from a workers personal device then that could be capable of engaging a workers Article 8 right. Whether the right was infringed would depend on the factual circumstances.
