Case 1804904/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Ward v Chariet Limited t/a Crown Spa Hotel — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804904/2020
- Decision date
- 19 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Ward was employed by Chariet Limited t/a Crown Spa Hotel from 23 August 2018 as a customer service advisor. She worked regular shifts across the health clinic and spa clinic receptions, usually in the region of 40 hours a week, and sometimes worked overtime in the administrative department. She was placed on furlough from 23 March 2020, and the dispute was whether furlough pay and holiday pay had been calculated by reference to her contracted 24-hour week or by reference to her actual reference salary under the CJRS.
On furlough pay, the tribunal held that the 25 March 2020 furlough letter, together with the signed agreement, amounted to a contractual variation that linked her pay to the CJRS and entitled her to 80% of her reference salary. It found that she was not a fixed-rate employee, and that her regular overtime fell within the scheme's definition of non-discretionary payment, so overtime had to be included when calculating reference salary. Applying the greater of the 2019-20 average and the corresponding calendar period in the previous year, the tribunal calculated proper furlough pay at £4,139.92 and actual pay received, excluding holiday pay, at £2,900.36, leaving an unlawful deduction of £1,239.56 gross.
On holiday pay, the tribunal held that the claimant's entitlement to Working Time Regulation leave was reg 13 leave and that normal remuneration had to include her regular overtime, applying Dudley MBC v Willetts and East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Neil Flowers and others. It found that the claimant had variable hours, so a 52-week reference period applied. The tribunal also found that the respondent's attempt to require holiday during furlough did not satisfy reg 15(2) because the notice did not specify the days of leave and was sent to the claimant's old address, although the tribunal still assessed the holiday pay actually due for the relevant periods.
Using the 52-week method, the tribunal fixed holiday pay properly payable at £712.73 and found that £567.45 had been paid, leaving an unlawful deduction of £145.28 gross. The tribunal therefore upheld both claims and ordered payment of £1,239.56 for furlough pay and £145.28 for holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underpayment of furlough pay from 23 March 2020 to termination; the tribunal held the furlough agreement varied the contract and the reference salary had to include regular overtime. | Upheld | — | £1,240 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underpayment of holiday pay during furlough; the tribunal held that reg 13 leave required normal remuneration including regular overtime and applied a 52-week reference period. | Upheld | — | £145 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,385
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- CJRS Treasury directions
- Dudley MBC v Willetts
- East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Neil Flowers and others
- Bear Scotland v Fulton and another
- reg 15(2) WTR 1998
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.