Case 1406385/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D. Cogger (Lay Rep) v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1406385/2023
- Decision date
- 2 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms D. Cogger (Lay Rep)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claims were brought in time. It found the claimants' holiday pay claims in respect of their zero-hours Bank contracts were well-founded under regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimants, within 28 days, the sums calculated by the respondent as due in its Counter-Schedule. The judgment records that those sums were payable under regulation 30(5) of the 1998 Regulations.
The judgment also states that Beate Zalewska and Tomasz Czypar only may revert to the tribunal within 28 days, if so advised, to challenge the respondent's calculations of their entitlements in the Counter-Schedule. Any such dispute is to be decided on the papers by Employment Judge Smail.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claims were brought in time and the tribunal held the claimants' holiday pay claims in respect of their zero-hours Bank contracts under regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 to be well-founded. The judgment orders payment of the sums calculated by the respondent in its Counter-Schedule under regulation 30(5). | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 30(5) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.