Case 1600226/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Wanda Zurawski v 1st Class Uniforms & Workwear Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600226/2022
- Decision date
- 18 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge HV Dieu
- Venue
- Llandudno Magistrates Court
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Wanda Zurawski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge H V Dieu sitting alone on 3 October 2022. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, her daughter Abigail Zurawski, and Mr Paul Raven for the respondent, and applied the limitation provisions in s.23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 together with the guidance in Taylorplan Services Limited v Jackson on series deductions and the date of the last act. The issues were limited to time limits and jurisdiction; the tribunal did not determine the substantive merits of the underlying claims.
The tribunal found that the claimant's employment had not been broken and re-engaged. It accepted that the amended contract signed on 18 March 2021, which recorded a start date of 19 December 2014, was consistent with continuous employment, and it relied on the absence of a P45 and holiday pay at that point as further support. It was not persuaded by Mr Raven's evidence that those matters were simply errors.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claims for unpaid accrued holiday pay, unlawful deduction from wages, breach of contract, detriment under reg. 4 TUPE, and failure to provide written particulars of employment were all presented in time. In relation to the TUPE-related pay reduction, the tribunal found there was no financial justification at the time advanced by the respondent, and it treated any detriment as capable of continuing until February 2022.
The claimant withdrew the claim for failure to inform and consult under TUPE and the claim for loss of pension rights. Those claims were treated as withdrawn and no merits findings were made on them.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal held the claim for unpaid accrued holiday pay was within time. No merits determination was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal held the unlawful deduction from wages claim was within time. The reasoning referred to a continuing pay reduction and time running from the last act. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal held the breach of contract claim was within time. The reasons referred to alleged pay-date issues continuing up to February 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal held the TUPE detriment claim was within time. It found the employment relationship had continued through the transfer and that any detriment could have continued until February 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide written statement of employment particulars under s.38 Employment Act 2002. The tribunal held it was within time, noting that liability transferred to the respondent on 1 March 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.23(2) ERA 1996
- s.23(3) ERA 1996
- s.23(4) ERA 1996
- Taylorplan Services Limited v Jackson (1996) IRLR 184
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.