Case 1805402/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Miss P Wildman v Shine Childcare Limited — 2021

Case reference: 1805402/2020
Decision date: 8 January 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge McAvoy Newns

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss P Wildman

Respondent

Shine Childcare Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Miss Wildman brought an unlawful deductions from wages claim about two matters: the amount she was paid while furloughed from 16 March 2020, and holiday pay said to be due on termination. The tribunal found that her contract, signed on 17 February 2020, contained a clause allowing the respondent to lay her off without pay or significantly reduce her hours if there was insufficient work. In the circumstances of the lockdown and nursery closure, the respondent was contractually entitled to reduce pay and use the CJRS, so the claim about furlough pay was not upheld.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the parties had agreed her furlough pay would be calculated by reference to her February 2020 wages. It found the only evidence for that was the claimant's account of a conversation said to have taken place on 30 March 2020, whereas the respondent had already set out in writing on 27 March 2020 that furlough pay would be based on average gross pay between April 2019 and February 2020. The claimant's own email of 31 March 2020 was treated as enquiring about the calculation rather than recording an agreed term, and the tribunal concluded no such agreement was proved.

On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that she did not agree to take annual leave in May 2020 and did not take such leave. It found the respondent's evidence about a conversation requiring staff to take leave was unreliable, and there was no valid notice specifying the days on which leave had to be taken as required by regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Because the claimant's employment ended on 12 June 2020, she should have been paid in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday on 26 June 2020. The failure to make that payment was an unauthorised deduction from wages, and that part of the claim was upheld.

The tribunal did not determine remedy in this judgment. It recorded that the claimant's schedule of loss contained inaccuracies and directed that the matter be listed for a separate remedy hearing, with updated schedules to be exchanged before that hearing.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This 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	Claim in respect of furlough pay between 16 March 2020 and 12 June 2020. The tribunal found the respondent had a contractual right to lay the claimant off or reduce hours/pay, that the CJRS-based payment method was explained before payment, and that no agreement was proved for furlough pay to be calculated by reference to February 2020 wages.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim in respect of holiday pay/payment in lieu on termination. The tribunal found the claimant did not take annual leave in May 2020, no valid notice under the Working Time Regulations was given, and on 26 June 2020 she ought to have received payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.