Case 1301507/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms Brazier (HR director) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301507/2023
- Decision date
- 5 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final merits hearing on 5 September 2023 before Employment Judge Perry sitting alone, the respondent had not lodged a response in time. Ms Brazier attended for the respondent and the claimant appeared in person. After the issues were clarified, all complaints other than one were withdrawn, leaving only the claim concerning two bank holidays worked while the claimant was on a call-out rota and whether he was entitled to two days in lieu.
The tribunal referred to clause 14 of the claimant’s contract, which provided that public holidays may be substituted by or with the employer’s agreement. It also considered correspondence ending in an email of 22 September 2022. On the tribunal’s reading, the respondent accepted in principle that where the claimant was called out on bank holidays he was entitled to day(s) in lieu, and accepted that he was entitled to two days in lieu. The tribunal found there was therefore the agreement required by clause 14. It added that, even if that was wrong, the claimant should have been permitted to take two alternative days in lieu as rest.
Because the claimant was not permitted to take those additional two days as leave, the tribunal held that the respondent had failed to compensate him for the accrued leave entitlement at the termination of employment. The award was £216 gross, calculated on an hourly rate of £13.50 and an eight-hour day for two days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claim concerned two bank holidays worked while the claimant was on a call-out rota and whether he was entitled to two days in lieu. The tribunal found an agreement under clause 14, or alternatively that he should have been allowed two alternative rest days. The judgment does not split the award between separate heads of claim. | Upheld | — | £216 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £216
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.