Mr Devlin of Counsel For the v Mr J Aylward, Director — 2023

The claimant, Ms Julie-Ann Verhulpen, was employed by The Cabin at Elmer Limited as head chef from 15 May 2021 until her summary dismissal on 20 June 2022. The tribunal heard conflicting evidence and found that Mrs Aylward, who dealt with day-to-day management and payment matters, had authority to act for the respondent and access its bank account. The claimant's gross monthly pay was 2,666 and her net monthly pay was 2,013, with an agreed gross weekly pay of 615.38 and net weekly pay of 464.54.

For the unpaid salary claim, the tribunal found that wages for 1 June 2022 to 20 June 2022 had not been paid and that the respondent could not offset earlier repayments made to the claimant. Although the respondent said those repayments were unauthorised, the tribunal found they were authorised because Mrs Aylward still had authority to deal with staff and payment matters. The claim for unlawful deduction from wages therefore succeeded, and the tribunal ordered payment of 1,846.14 gross for that period under section 13 and section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had a contractual holiday year starting on 15 May 2021, with 28 days' entitlement in that year and a further three days accrued pro rata in the second year before dismissal. It accepted her evidence that she had not taken annual leave beyond normal days off or days in lieu, and relied on the 5 January 2022 letter from Mrs Aylward agreeing that she would not lose accrued holiday and could carry it forward. The tribunal found that 31 days of accrued holiday remained unpaid and ordered payment of 3,815.17 gross under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.

For notice pay, the parties agreed that the contractual notice period was one week. The respondent relied on alleged gross misconduct, including excessive alcohol consumption between shifts and verbal aggressive behaviour, but the tribunal found that gross misconduct had not been proved. It therefore held that the dismissal was without notice and that the failure to pay the contractual notice period was a breach of contract, awarding 464.54 net for one week's notice pay.