Case 1811265/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Easton First v Second Respondent: Exact Education Ltd Choice Contracting Services Limited (in liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1811265/2018
- Decision date
- 21 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox
- Panel members
- Ms B R Hodgkinson, Mr L Priestley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Easton First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Easton was a worker employed by Exact Education Ltd for the purposes of holiday pay and wages claims, and that his agreement was with Exact rather than with Choice Contracting Services Limited. Although payroll was administered through Wise Move and Choice, Mr Easton did not agree to be employed by Choice, did not sign the Choice contract, and his dealings about pay and hours were mainly with Exact's consultants.
On holiday pay, the tribunal held that Mr Easton was entitled to 5.6 weeks' paid leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and that his holiday pay should be calculated by reference to normal pay for the relevant Directive weeks. The claim for holiday pay in respect of October and December 2017 and January 2018 was out of time and dismissed. The claim succeeded for leave taken in July and August 2018, where the tribunal calculated the unpaid holiday pay by reference to his average hours and hourly rate, arriving at £3,976 against Exact.
The tribunal dismissed the separate claim for unpaid wages for the week beginning 16 July 2018. It accepted that Mr Easton worked 38 hours that week, but found that under the contractual arrangement with Exact payment was only properly payable for hours authorised by RNN, and there was no evidence that RNN had authorised those hours. The tribunal therefore held that no unlawful deduction from wages had occurred for that week.
The claim under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 was also dismissed. The tribunal accepted that Mr Easton was within the scope of the AWR as an agency worker supplied by Exact to RNN, but found no breach of the parity provisions. It concluded that his annual leave entitlement was not less than that of a directly recruited lecturer, and that the evidence did not establish a higher holiday pay entitlement on the assumed direct-employment comparator basis. The tribunal therefore found no additional remedy under the AWR beyond the holiday pay award already made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Succeeded against the First Respondent only. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from holiday pay for leave taken in the weeks beginning 23 July 2018, 30 July 2018, 6 August 2018 and 13 August 2018. Earlier holiday pay deductions in October and December 2017 and January 2018 were out of time and dismissed. The award of £3,976 was stated to be subject to any deduction of income tax and National Insurance contributions. | Upheld | — | £3,976 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for an unauthorised deduction from wages for the week beginning 16 July 2018 failed because, although Mr Easton worked 38 hours, the tribunal found no wages were properly payable for those hours without RNN authorisation under the implied terms of the arrangement with Exact. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Agency worker regulations | The tribunal accepted that Mr Easton was an agency worker within the AWR, but found no breach of the parity rights relied on. It held that his leave entitlement was not less than that of a directly recruited lecturer and that his holiday pay entitlement, assessed on the evidence accepted by the tribunal, did not show a shortfall. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,976
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- Working Time Regulations 1998
- Section 13 ERA 1996
- Section 23 ERA 1996
- British Airways plc v Williams
- Fulton and Baxter v Bear Scotland Limited
- Regulation 3 AWR 2010
- Regulation 5 AWR 2010
- Regulation 14 AWR 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.