Case 2304767/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Robbins (Director) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304767/2020
- Decision date
- 1 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case on 30 September 2021 before Employment Judge Webster. The claimant, a driver employed from 14 December 2018 to 18 September 2020, claimed unpaid holiday pay, unpaid wages and a furlough shortfall. There was no bundle, but the tribunal heard sworn evidence from both parties and had a witness statement from Mr Robbins. Because the claim was issued before termination, the tribunal said it could deal with the holiday-pay and wages issues only as unlawful deduction from wages claims under s.13 ERA 1996, not as breach of contract claims. It also recorded that the contract allowed 20 days' annual leave plus 8 bank holidays, which it said was commensurate with 5.6 weeks under the Working Time Regulations 1998.
On the holiday-pay and unpaid-wages issues, the tribunal accepted the respondent's September 2020 payslip evidence. It found that the claimant had been paid £912 for 9.5 days' holiday pay and £384 for 32 hours at £12 per hour, and it accepted that these payments were intended to cover the one day's holiday pay and the unpaid shift said to be due earlier in the year. The tribunal said the payments had been made late, but concluded that the claimant had now been paid the sums owed and did not uphold those claims.
On the furlough issue, the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that May 2020 furlough pay was calculated by reference to the claimant's corresponding 2019 earnings in line with the CJRS rules. It found that the May 2020 payment of £2,419.65 was slightly above 80% of the May 2019 reference salary and that the June 2020 payment reached the £2,500 cap because the June 2019 reference figure was higher. The tribunal rejected the claimant's contention that he was entitled to the cap in every month and found there was no shortfall of £31.99 in May 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claim concerned one day's unpaid holiday pay said to be due on 11 March 2020. The tribunal accepted that the September 2020 payslip showed £912 for 9.5 days' holiday pay, including the day in issue and accrued untaken leave, and held that the claimant had now been paid, albeit late. The conclusion paragraph refers to '11 May 2020', although the claim and earlier findings refer to March 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned unpaid wages for a shift said to be due on 16 March 2020. The tribunal accepted that the September 2020 payslip showed £384 for 32 hours at £12 per hour and treated that payment as covering the shift plus a goodwill element. Paragraph 12 refers to £382, and the conclusion paragraph refers to '16 May 2020', although the earlier findings refer to March 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned an alleged furlough shortfall of £31.99 in May 2020. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that May 2020 pay was calculated by reference to the corresponding 2019 earnings under the CJRS rules, and found there was no shortfall or deduction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.7 Extension of Jurisdiction Regulations 1994
- CJRS Direction rule 7.1
- CJRS Direction rule 7.2
- Working Time Regulations 1998
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.