Case 1800311/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800311/2022
- Decision date
- 26 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James
- Venue
- Sheffield
- Panel members
- Ms M Cairns, Mr J Howarth
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Palmer's claims against Polypipe Limited were brought under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. The tribunal upheld the claim for entitlement to the same basic working and employment conditions under Regulations 5 and 6 in relation to the allegation that the respondent refused to allow him to finish work at 16:00 and claim pay up to 17:45 on the same day, which employed drivers could do subject to certain conditions. For that claim, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a minimum award of two weeks' pay under Regulation 18(12)(a), calculated at £638.75 per week and totalling £1,277.50.
The separate claim under Regulation 5 concerning alleged refusal to pay the claimant in relation to rest breaks and/or rest periods was dismissed. The tribunal also upheld one detriment claim under Regulation 17 in relation to the termination of the claimant's assignment with the respondent on or about 17 September 2021.
For the upheld detriment claim, the tribunal awarded £5,000 for injury to feelings and £471.24 interest, calculated at 8% of £5,000 for one year and 65 days. The remaining five detriment claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency worker regulations | Upheld under Regulations 5 and 6 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 in relation to the allegation that the respondent refused to allow the claimant to finish work at 16:00 and claim pay up to 17:45 on the same day, which employed drivers could do subject to conditions. | Upheld | — | £1,278 |
| Agency worker regulations | Claim under Regulation 5 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 concerning alleged refusal to pay the claimant in relation to rest breaks and/or rest periods. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Agency worker regulations | Detriment claim under Regulation 17 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 upheld in relation to the termination of the claimant's assignment with the respondent on or about 17 September 2021. The award comprised £5,000 for injury to feelings plus £471.24 interest. | Upheld | — | £5,471 |
| Agency worker regulations | One of the remaining five detriment claims under Regulation 17 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010; the dispositive section does not identify the individual allegation separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Agency worker regulations | One of the remaining five detriment claims under Regulation 17 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010; the dispositive section does not identify the individual allegation separately. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,749
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Regulations 5 and 6, Agency Workers Regulations 2010
- Regulation 17, Agency Workers Regulations 2010
- Regulation 18(12)(a), Agency Workers Regulations 2010
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.