Case 1802603/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Jarecka v Platter Yorkshire Ltd trading as Platter Yorkshire — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802603/2021
- Decision date
- 1 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Jarecka
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs A Jarecka worked as a chef for Platter Yorkshire Ltd trading as Platter Yorkshire from 10 September 2020 to 19 February 2021 at £9 per hour for 20 hours a week. The respondent did not present a response and did not attend the CVP hearing. The tribunal accepted the claimant's account in full and found that, after 4 January 2021, the parties agreed she would not attend work and would be placed on furlough at 80% of pay, although no furlough payments were in fact made.
The tribunal held that the respondent made unlawful deductions from wages for the seven weeks up to resignation. It found that the claimant was entitled to 80% of seven weeks' pay, calculated at £1,008.00, but she had to give credit for the £805.00 transfer she later received, leaving £203.00 due. It also found that the failure to pay wages in accordance with the agreed variation was a repudiatory breach of contract, so the claimant was entitled to one week's notice pay at her standard weekly rate of £180.00.
The tribunal further awarded £446.40 for accrued but untaken annual leave under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, on the basis that the claimant had accrued 2.48 weeks' leave by the termination date and had never taken any paid holiday. Under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, it made a further award of two weeks' pay, £360.00, because the respondent had not provided a statement of particulars of employment.
The redundancy payment claim was dismissed because the claimant did not have the necessary two years' continuous service. The deduction from benefits claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the tribunal said it had no power under Part II ERA 1996 to award missing benefits, which would need to be pursued with HMRC or DWP.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unlawful deductions from wages for the seven-week period from 1 January 2021 to 19 February 2021. It calculated 80% of seven weeks' pay at £1,008.00, then gave credit for the later £805.00 payment, leaving £203.00 payable. | Upheld | — | £203 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a repudiatory breach in failing to pay wages in accordance with the agreed furlough variation and held that the claimant was constructively dismissed in breach of contract. It awarded one week's notice pay at the claimant's standard weekly rate of £180.00. | Upheld | — | £180 |
| Working time regulations | Under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the tribunal awarded compensation for accrued but untaken paid annual leave. It found 2.48 weeks had accrued and valued this at £446.40. | Upheld | — | £446 |
| Other | Under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the tribunal awarded two weeks' pay for failure to provide a statement of particulars of employment. | Upheld | — | £360 |
| Redundancy | The redundancy payment claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal said the claimant lacked the necessary two years' continuous service to establish entitlement. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,189
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- Part XI ERA 1996
- Part II ERA 1996
- section 86 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- regulations 13, 13A and 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.