Case 2201602/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Andreeva v VIP Tour London Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201602/2020
- Decision date
- 17 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicklin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Andreeva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms E Andreeva, brought claims of unlawful deductions from wages concerning holiday pay and a contractual bonus. The tribunal granted the respondent's late ET3 application and then heard evidence from the claimant and Mr Pestov, the respondent's director. It found that the claimant worked from 15 June 2019 to 22 January 2020 under a contract providing 28 days' annual leave and a discretionary bonus scheme linked to monthly profit above a £2,000 personal performance target.
On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had 15 days' leave for 2019 and found she used 14 days, leaving 1 day unused at the end of 2019. That day was not carried over into the 2020 leave year because clause 9.4 prevented carry-over. However, the tribunal found that she then accrued 2 days' holiday in January 2020, rounded up under clause 9.1, and did not take those days before termination on 22 January 2020. Those 2 days were not paid in her final pay.
The tribunal held that the January 2020 holiday pay was contractually due and that the contract did not authorise the respondent to deduct it from final wages. It therefore found an unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded £245.92 gross, calculated at the accepted gross daily rate of £122.96 for 2 days, subject to tax and National Insurance deductions.
On the bonus claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had not met the contractual conditions for any bonus payment. It accepted Mr Pestov's evidence that the claimant's total profit during employment was £5,758.96, but that no month exceeded the £2,000 target required to trigger a bonus under Schedule 2. It also found that the claimant's belief that she had seen a bonus figure on the CRM system did not establish entitlement, and that no bonus had been declared. Applying the authorities it cited on discretionary bonuses and rationality, the tribunal found the respondent's operation of the scheme rational and dismissed the bonus claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 | Holiday pay claim succeeded only in respect of 2 days accrued in January 2020 that were not taken before termination on 22 January 2020. The tribunal found that 1 day accrued in 2019 was not carried forward into the 2020 holiday year under clause 9.4, and that the contractual deduction position made the unpaid January 2020 holiday an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £246 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The bonus claim failed because the claimant did not meet the contractual bonus scheme terms in any month of employment: the tribunal found her profit never exceeded the £2,000 personal performance target and no bonus was declared. The tribunal also found the respondent's exercise of discretion rational under the scheme. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £246
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- Clark v Nomura International Plc irrationality/perversity test
- IBM UK Holdings Ltd v Dalgleish Wednesbury rationality test
- New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church
- Farrell Matthews & Weir v Hansen
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.