Case 1600973/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mrs B Davies (2) Miss M Davies v RB Hotels (Marford) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600973/2021
- Decision date
- 18 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Othen Representation
- Venue
- Mold Law Courts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mrs B Davies (2) Miss M Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were front of house staff at the respondent's pub. They were hourly paid, had no written contracts and never received itemised pay statements. Both resigned on 25 April 2021 after wages and furlough pay stopped in mid-April 2021, and they later relied on HMRC information showing furlough sums had been reported but not paid.
On the wages claim, the tribunal accepted the claimants' unchallenged evidence that April 2021 furlough pay had not been paid. It found an unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded £529.04 to the first claimant and £637.58 to the second claimant.
On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted that the first claimant had not been paid for holidays taken and that the second claimant had only been paid for two isolated weeks of holiday in October 2019 and February 2020. Applying King v Sash Window Workshop Ltd, Kreuziger, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften eV v Shimizu, Smith v Pimlico Plumbers, and the Working Time (Coronavirus) Amendment Regulations 2020, it held that both claimants were entitled to payment in lieu of untaken leave on termination. It awarded £1,524.60 to the first claimant and £1,541.00 to the second claimant.
For pay statements, the tribunal found that neither claimant had been provided with itemised pay slips as required by section 8 ERA 1996 and made a declaration to that effect. No award was made on that issue.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that both claimants were owed furlough pay for April 2021 that had not been paid. It ordered £529.04 to the first claimant and £637.58 to the second claimant, a combined total of £1,166.62. | Upheld | — | £1,167 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that both claimants were entitled to payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday on termination. It awarded £1,524.60 to the first claimant and £1,541.00 to the second claimant, a combined total of £3,065.60. | Upheld | — | £3,066 |
| Other | The tribunal found that neither claimant had been provided with itemised pay statements in accordance with section 8 ERA 1996. It made a declaration to that effect and made no monetary award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,232
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Working Time (Coronavirus) Amendment Regulations 2020
- King v Sash Window Workshop Ltd
- Kreuziger v Berlin
- Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften eV v Shimizu
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers [2022] EWCA Civ 70
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.