Case 2201582/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. Urszula Hajdas v Took US A Long Time Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201582/2021
- Decision date
- 31 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Joyce Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. Urszula Hajdas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for unpaid statutory redundancy pay, unpaid notice pay, unpaid holiday pay on termination, and unpaid pension entitlement. She did not dispute that she was redundant; the dispute was about the calculation of her week's pay and, for leave, whether the furlough agreement allowed accrued leave to be treated as taken. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from Ms Mayuri Vachhani for the respondent.
On the week's pay issue, the tribunal held that the claimant did not have normal working hours for the purposes of section 224 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because, although her contract provided for a minimum of 30 hours per week, her actual hours varied and she often worked more or fewer than that minimum. The week used in the 12-week calculation should not have been the week in which she worked 15.25 hours; instead, a 30-hour week at £264 should have been included. That produced an average week's pay of £357.83. Using that figure, the correct statutory redundancy payment would have been £3,936.13, so £119.01 remained unpaid. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the £3,817.12 already paid was an ex gratia payment, finding instead that it was the statutory redundancy payment.
On notice pay, the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to 10 weeks' notice, not 11 weeks' monetary entitlement. On the tribunal's calculation, 10 weeks at £357.83 came to £3,578.30. After deducting the furlough pay and notice pay already received, £59.99 remained outstanding. On holiday pay, the tribunal held that the furlough agreement clearly allowed annual leave accrued both before and during furlough to be treated as taken, but the claimant was still entitled to a 20% top-up under the furlough agreement and the redundancy notice. Applying regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the tribunal found £5.97 remained unpaid. The respondent conceded at the hearing that £45.39 net was due in respect of pension entitlement, and the tribunal ordered payment of all four sums.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal rejected the claimant's submission that the £3,817.12 payment was ex gratia and found it was statutory redundancy pay. Using a corrected week's pay of £357.83, the statutory redundancy payment should have been £3,936.13, leaving £119.01 unpaid. | Upheld | — | £119 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the furlough agreement was sufficiently clear that leave accrued before furlough as well as during furlough could be treated as taken, but found the claimant remained entitled to a 20% top-up. Applying regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, £5.97 remained outstanding. | Upheld | — | £6 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 10 weeks' notice. Using the corrected week's pay, and after deducting the furlough pay and notice pay already received, £59.99 remained due in respect of notice pay in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £60 |
| Other | At the hearing the respondent conceded that a net pension payment of £45.39 was due to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £45 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £230
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.222 ERA 1996
- s.223 ERA 1996
- s.224 ERA 1996
- s.225 ERA 1996
- reg 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- GAP Personnel Franchises Ltd v Robinson
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.