In person v Mr Granville-Fall, Managing Director — 2020

The claimant worked for the respondent as an engineer and, by the hearing, was pursuing only holiday pay and compensation for an alleged failure to provide written particulars of employment. The main factual issue on the holiday pay claim was whether two periods of absence in October and November 2019 had been authorised as time off in lieu for overtime or had been taken as holiday.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of Mr Granville-Fall on the time off in lieu issue. It accepted that a September 2019 conversation made clear that any time off in lieu had to follow the correct process, including a completed form and authorisation by Mr Rounding. The tribunal found it unlikely that Mr Rounding would later have told the claimant that the disputed dates were authorised as time off in lieu without the required paperwork, and it also noted that the claimant had not raised that case in his claim form or at the earlier hearing. It therefore found, on the balance of probabilities, that the disputed dates were holiday.

On that basis, and taking the agreed holiday dates into account, the tribunal found the claimant had taken 4.4 weeks of his 4.95 weeks' entitlement to the date his employment ended. He was owed the balance of 0.55 weeks at his weekly pay of £576.92, producing an award of £317.30.

On the written particulars issue, the tribunal preferred Mr Granville-Fall's evidence that the claimant had been given an offer letter and a document headed 'Terms and conditions of employment' at the start of employment on 7 November 2018. It found those documents met the requirements of section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 and that there was no basis for additional compensation under section 38 Employment Act 2002.