Case 2301550/2021 · Employment Tribunal

(1) Mr D McShaw (2) Mr R McShaw (3) Mr E Atwere v Mitie Limited — 2020

Case reference: 2301550/2021
Decision date: 1 March 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
Venue: London South

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

(1) Mr D McShaw (2) Mr R McShaw (3) Mr E Atwere

Respondent

Mitie Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Claimants remained employed by Mitie Limited in security roles at a client site. They brought unauthorised deduction from wages complaints based on alleged contractual entitlements to weekend work, shift cover, holiday-cover work, and double-time payments, and the Second and Third Claimants also brought Working Time Regulations complaints about annual leave entitlement.

The Tribunal found that several unauthorised deduction complaints were out of time and that it had no jurisdiction to consider them. For the remaining unauthorised deduction complaints, the Tribunal found that the Claimants had not established the contractual terms relied on by custom and practice. It also found that the dates relied on for the Second Claimant's double-time complaint were not bank holidays or substitute days within the VSG COT3. Those complaints were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the Second and Third Claimants were entitled to 29 days' annual leave in 2020/2021 and 28 days in each of 2021/2022, 2022/2023 and 2023/2024. It found that the Respondent had refused to permit them to take their full entitlement in those years. Compensation was awarded for the untaken leave and a limited amount for loss of earnings in pursuing the successful annual leave complaints. No ACAS uplift was applied because the Tribunal found no basis to conclude that there had been an unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Complaints 1 to 9, 11 and 12 were dismissed. Some were dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction as they were out of time; the remaining complaints failed because the Claimants had not established the contractual entitlements relied on or, for the substitute day complaint, the relevant shifts were not bank holidays or substitute days.	Dismissed	—	—
Working time regulations	The Second and Third Claimants' complaints that the Respondent refused to permit them to take all annual leave to which they were entitled under the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeded. The Tribunal awarded £3,796.28 to the Second Claimant and £3,633.08 to the Third Claimant, gross.	Upheld	—	£7,429

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £7,429; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

24 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.

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.