Case 1303619/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Emma Napper v Cassa Consultancy Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1303619/2021
- Decision date
- 21 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Emma Napper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case in the respondent's absence after being satisfied that the hearing date and venue had been notified and that no application to postpone had been made. It found that Miss Emma Napper worked as a Supervisor at the Rugby Hotel, that she had to do the work herself, took instructions from Carl Davidson, and had no agreement allowing substitution. On that basis, and having regard to the circumstances, the tribunal concluded that she was an employee.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant's employment ended on 29 May 2021 and held that the claims were presented in time. It found that the last payment of wages was due no earlier than 31 May 2021, that ACAS early conciliation was started on 29 June 2021, the certificate issued on 10 August 2021, and the tribunal claim was presented on 24 August 2021 within the relevant time limits.
On the wages claim, the tribunal found that the hotel could not reopen before 17 May 2021 and that the claimant remained on furlough until she was told on 20 May 2021 that she would return the following week. It rejected the respondent's case that she had returned to work in the first week of May or that she was on a zero-hours contract, because there was no supporting evidence. The tribunal found that she should have been paid furlough pay from 1 May 2021 to 23 May 2021, that her total entitlement for 1 May 2021 to 29 May 2021 was £1,040.88, and that she had only been paid £227.60, leaving £813.27 gross unpaid as an unauthorised deduction.
The separate complaint about failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars also succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to a written statement under section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996, that she had never been given one, and that no exceptional circumstances were shown. Because she had succeeded in the wages claim, the tribunal made the section 38 Employment Act 2002 additional award of two weeks' pay, calculated at £341.95 per week for 35 hours at £9.77 per hour, producing £683.90.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction of gross furlough pay for 1 May 2021 to 23 May 2021 and ordered payment of £813.27. | Upheld | — | £813 |
| Other | Complaint for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; the tribunal made an additional award of two weeks' pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £684 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,497
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- control, mutuality of obligation and personal performance
- s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
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.