Case 1303917/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Johnston v Salop Caravans (Cosford) UK Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1303917/2018
- Decision date
- 19 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Johnston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis reserved judgment dealt with the claimant’s separate breach of contract claim about notice pay. The tribunal noted at the outset that it was in addition to an earlier judgment in the same case concerning unfair dismissal and unpaid holiday pay. The claimant, Mr R Johnston, had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and argued that his notice pay should have been calculated by including Saturday overtime because he said he was contractually obliged to work Saturdays on a rota basis.
The tribunal found that the claimant worked varying Saturday hours depending on whether a customer was collecting a caravan, sometimes for about 45 minutes and sometimes for up to five hours. It accepted the respondent’s evidence that there was no contractual requirement to work Saturday mornings, there were no other contractual documents showing such an obligation, and overtime was available only on an ad hoc basis. The claimant could agree or refuse it, and the tribunal found there was no regular pattern or expectation of overtime. On that basis, it held that Saturday work was not a term of the contract and that the claimant had no contractual entitlement to notice pay including Saturdays he did not work, so the breach of contract claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for underpaid notice pay on the basis that Saturday overtime should have been included in the contractual calculation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.