Case 2303737/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Xerri v ISS Mediclean Limited t/a ISS Facilities Services, Healthcare — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303737/2018
- Decision date
- 26 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
- Venue
- Ashford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Xerri
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr T Xerri brought claims for breach of contract and unlawful deductions from wages over bank holiday pay. The breach of contract claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Xerri and two respondent witnesses, and considered the employee handbook, the 2009 collective agreement, the 2011 shift-change letter, holiday records, and the parties' competing interpretations of the bank-holiday provisions.
Applying section 13 ERA 1996 and contractual interpretation principles, including New Century Cleaning, Investors Compensation Scheme, Mannai, Antaios, and contra proferentem, the tribunal held that the handbook and terms and conditions entitled Mr Xerri to be paid for bank holidays when he was not required to work on those days. The 25 January 2011 letter changed his roster to Wednesday to Sunday nights but stated that all other terms and conditions remained unchanged. On that basis, the tribunal found that he was contractually and legally entitled to bank holiday pay for the three bank holidays claimed, including 9 May 2018, 30 May 2018 and 27 August 2018. Because the express terms resolved the point, it did not need to decide the alternative cases based on oral agreement or implied term by custom and practice.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from wages. It accepted that the claimant's basic daily rate was £60.55 and recorded the underlying deduction amount as £181.65. It then found that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code by not holding a grievance meeting, and applied a 25% uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, producing the operative award of £227.06.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that the breach of contract claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claimant was contractually entitled to be paid for the three bank holidays claimed when he was not required to work. It found the underlying deductions totalled £181.65 and applied a 25% uplift under s.207A after the respondent unreasonably failed to hold a grievance meeting, producing the operative award of £227.06. | Upheld | — | £227 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £227
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £182
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- New Century Cleaning Company Limited v Church
- Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society
- Mannai Investments Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd
- The Antaios Compania Neviera S.A. v Salen Rederierna A.B.
- contra proferentem rule
- Devonald v Rosser & Sons
- Duke v Reliance Systems Ltd
- Solectron Scotland Limited v Roper
- Park Cakes Ltd v Shumba
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- McMenemy v Capita Business Services Ltd
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.