Case 2306118/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Andraous v The Nail and Beauty Zone Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306118/2023
- Decision date
- 6 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Andraous
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss E Andraous was employed by The Nail and Beauty Zone Ltd as a Spa Therapist from 7 March 2023 to 13 September 2023. Her contract provided hourly rates of £11, £10 for non-booked work, and £12 for booked treatment work, with separate provisions for holiday, training, pensions, and a contractual variation clause. The tribunal found that the £12 treatment rate was an absolute contractual entitlement and not a discretionary bonus or commission, and that there was no evidence the claimant was given written notice of a contractual variation removing that rate from 1 July 2023.
On the pay claim, the tribunal accepted the respondent's Zenoti records as accurately capturing the claimant's service hours and rejected the claimant's challenge to those figures. It found underpayments in July 2023, August 2023, and September 2023. July was underpaid because the respondent had unilaterally changed the pay structure mid-period; August was underpaid because the claimant was still entitled to some £12 booked-rate pay and paid annual leave, despite the respondent's commission payment; and September was underpaid because the respondent was not entitled to deduct 35 hours of internal training pay under the contract's training-cost clause. The total unlawful deduction from wages was £606.37 gross, made up of £54.64 for July, £107.30 for August, and £444.43 for September.
The holiday pay complaint failed because, applying the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the claimant's contractual accrual terms, the tribunal found that by termination on 13 September 2023 she had no accrued but untaken leave remaining. It found that she had taken 14 days paid annual leave during the leave year and had therefore been paid for the leave due. The breach of contract claim succeeded in principle because the pension contributions were not paid into the scheme on a timely basis, but the tribunal found the contributions were later paid in and no loss was shown, so no damages were awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages in July, August and September 2023. It held the £12 booked-rate remained contractual, rejected the purported July 2023 variation, and found the September training deduction was not authorised by the contract. | Upheld | — | £606 |
| Holiday pay | The complaint of failure to pay accrued but untaken annual leave on termination failed. The tribunal found that at termination the claimant had no accrued but untaken leave to be paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach because employer and employee pension contributions were not paid into the pension scheme in a timely way. No damages were awarded because the sums were later paid into the scheme and no loss was shown. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £606
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- Agarwal v Cardiff University and anor [2019] ICR 433
- Wandsworth London Borough Council v D'Silva and anor [1998] IRLR 193
- Johnson v Unisys [2001] ICR 480
- United Bank v Akhtar [1989] IRLR 507
- Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and anor [2015] ICR 449
- Regulation 15A Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.