Case 2203571/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G de Lauro Oliveira v Fortnum and Mason plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203571/2021
- Decision date
- 4 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G de Lauro Oliveira
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing an oral judgment on unfair dismissal on 26 January 2022, the written reasons dealt with the remaining claims for breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay. The claimant had been employed as a Purchasing Assistant from 3 September 2018 to 3 September 2020. Her contract set salary at £22,100, rising to £22,542 from 1 April 2019, and the tribunal found the respondent had miscalculated salary throughout the employment by treating Tronc payments as included in salary when the contract did not contain a term authorising that deduction.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's counter-schedule rather than the claimant's revised schedule and found the gross salary underpayment over the employment was £3,431.78. It also found that payments made on 1 January 2021 and 29 April 2022 meant no salary arrears remained outstanding, so although the deduction from wages claim succeeded, no further payment was ordered under s.25(3) ERA 1996. The tribunal rejected the claimant's request for interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 because that provision does not apply in the Employment Tribunal.
On pension contributions, the tribunal held that employer pension contributions are not wages, relying on Somerset County Council v Mr C J Chambers. It treated the point as a breach of contract claim but dismissed it because the pension contribution attributable to the salary underpayment had already been paid, including £145.91 paid to the pension provider on 5 November 2021 and the remaining amount treated as covered by the later payment.
The Working Time Regulations claim also failed. The tribunal found the claimant took five days' annual leave in the leave year 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020. Although she was at home on full pay from 24 March 2020 until she returned to work in June 2020, and the respondent had encouraged staff in its 9 April 2020 letter to take leave, the tribunal held it would have been reasonably practicable for her to take leave during that period. The claim for pay in lieu of untaken holiday was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had miscalculated salary by treating Tronc payments as included in pay, when the claimant's contract did not authorise that approach. It accepted the respondent's counter-schedule, found the salary underpayment totalled £3,431.78 gross, and held that the amounts due had already been paid so no further order was made under s.25(3) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim was for damages in respect of employer pension contributions attributable to the salary underpayment. The tribunal held that pension contributions are not wages for an unlawful deduction claim and, although 4% of the relevant sums was identified, the contribution due had already been paid to the pension provider or through the later payment, so no damages were awarded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 for pay in lieu of untaken holiday failed. The tribunal found the claimant took five days' annual leave in the 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 leave year, was at home on full pay from 24 March 2020 into June 2020, and that it would have been reasonably practicable for her to take leave during that period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.25(3) ERA 1996
- Somerset County Council v Mr C J Chambers
- s.69 County Courts Act 1984
- regulation 13(10) WTR
- reasonably practicable test
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.