Case 1601616/2021 · Employment Tribunal
X First Respondent (1R): Y Second Respondent (2R): Cardiff Council v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601616/2021
- Decision date
- 21 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
X First Respondent (1R): Y Second Respondent (2R): Cardiff Council
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a claim for unlawful deduction from wages arising from disputed entitlement to enhanced sick pay under the Burgundy Book. The claimant, a schoolteacher, said that after a meeting on 27 November 2019 she became unwell and went off sick from 28 November 2019, and that paragraph 9.1 sick pay should have been paid from 28 November 2019 to 27 May 2020, with paragraph 2.1 sick pay then continuing thereafter. The parties agreed a preliminary issue on whether, taking the claimant's case at its highest, the wages properly payable during 28 May 2020 to 27 May 2021 were less than the sums actually paid.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that, on the claimant's pleaded case, the wages properly payable between 28 May 2020 and 27 May 2021 were the amounts she actually received under paragraph 2.1 of the Burgundy Book. It found that no attestation by an Approved Medical Practitioner was in force during the pay occasions in question, so paragraph 9.1 had not been triggered at the relevant time. The tribunal also held that the later December 2022 attestation could not retrospectively convert those payments into unlawful deductions, and that the claim was premature when presented. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- wages properly payable
- series of deductions
- Delaney v Staples
- Group 4 Night Speed Ltd v Gilbert
- Hyde v Lehman Brothers Ltd
- New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church
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.