Mr Kolev v Gap Personnel Holdings Limited (First Respondent) Proactive Personnel Ltd (Second Respondent) — 2021

The claimant brought a claim for alleged unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal noted that he had failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence and had already received two strike-out warnings, but it did not strike out the case because he attended the hearing.

The claim against the Second Respondent, Proactive Personnel Ltd, was withdrawn after the claimant accepted that he did not work on assignment for that respondent at the material time. As to the First Respondent, Gap Personnel Holdings Limited, the claimant accepted the Respondent's table of hours and gross pay for the 9-week period from 20 December 2020 to 28 February 2021, and accepted that this was the correct reference period for calculating average earnings.

Using that 9-week period, the tribunal recorded an average weekly gross earnings figure of £251.52. It accepted the Respondent's calculation that 39 hours of annual leave equated to 1.0863 weeks, producing holiday pay of £273.23, and noted that the claimant had in fact been paid £274.07. The tribunal therefore found that the correct holiday pay had been paid and dismissed the claim against the First Respondent as not well founded.