Case 1600871/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Outlaw v B&B Industrial Doors Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600871/2020
- Decision date
- 20 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Outlaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Outlaw was employed by B&B Industrial Doors Limited as a welder fabricator and fitter from 30 September 2019 until dismissal on 28 February 2020. The tribunal heard the case by video on 14 April 2021 and sat with Employment Judge R Harfield sitting alone. The judgment addressed notice pay, holiday pay, deductions from wages for work claimed on worksheets, and a deduction taken from the claimant's final wages for a roof rack, ladders and a parking fine.
The claim for one week's notice pay was dismissed. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence that the claimant was given the option either to leave immediately or work his notice and be paid, and found that he worked the Monday and part of the Tuesday of the notice week before not returning. On that basis, and relying on the respondent's email calculating final pay on the basis of two days, the tribunal found no additional notice pay was due.
The claim for alleged deductions from wages for work recorded on worksheets was also dismissed. The tribunal found that it did not have a full set of worksheets and that the claimant had not identified with sufficient precision the sums said to be payable or why they were due. Applying the evidence before it, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had shown those sums were properly payable wages.
Holiday pay succeeded in part. The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to 5 days' holiday pay on termination, made up of 4.5 days accrued in the relevant holiday year plus 0.5 day carried forward. The respondent had paid 3.5 days, leaving 1.5 days unpaid. Using the claimant's average gross weekly pay of £512.08 and a daily rate of £102.42, the tribunal awarded £153.63 gross for holiday pay.
The tribunal also held that the deduction of £620 from the claimant's final wages was an unauthorised deduction from wages within section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant had agreed only to incremental deductions from ongoing pay, not a single deduction from final pay, and the written documents relied on by the respondent were unsigned and had not been shown to the claimant before the deduction was made. The judgment recorded a total sum due of £773.63.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim for one week was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant did not work the remainder of the notice period and was therefore not entitled to additional notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay succeeded to the extent of 1.5 days' gross pay on termination, calculated from an average weekly gross pay of £512.08 and a daily rate of £102.42. | Upheld | — | £154 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence that the claimant had established the sums claimed for work recorded on worksheets were properly payable to him. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The deduction of £620 from the claimant's final wages for the roof rack, ladders and parking fine was held to be unauthorised under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £620 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £774
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- balance of probabilities
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.