Case 2402004/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Bonkowska v Mercor Fire Protection UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402004/2023
- Decision date
- 21 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Bonkowska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Bonkowska brought a claim for unpaid wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and a separate holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from Mr Marshall for the respondent. It declined to hear from Mr Solich because he had not been called in accordance with the agreed procedure, and the tribunal considered that admitting him at that stage would be disproportionate and unfairly prejudicial to the respondent.
On the holiday issue, the tribunal found that the claimant's contract entitled her to 28 days' annual leave per year pro rata, which amounted to 12 days in her final year. It found, on the respondent's evidence and the formal leave record that the claimant herself kept and supplied for payroll purposes, that she had taken 36 days' holiday between 1 January 2022 and 24 October 2022. The tribunal rejected the claimant's allegation that Mr Marshall had falsified the leave record, found her alternative holiday table unreliable, and held that she had not established any untaken holiday entitlement at termination.
On the wages complaint, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had been due statutory sick pay for the end of September and October 2022, calculated at £99.35 per week or £14.19 per day, amounting to £340.62. However, it also found that the claimant had been overpaid for 28 days of holiday taken in excess of her entitlement, calculated at £3,102.40 using her daily rate of £110.80, and that the respondent had already paid £862.17 during early conciliation. In light of those offsets and the contractual deduction clause, the tribunal concluded that no wages were properly payable and dismissed the unlawful deduction claim.
The result was that both the holiday pay claim and the unpaid wages claim were dismissed, with no monetary award made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for outstanding holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found the claimant's pro rata entitlement in her final year was 12 days, found as a fact that she had taken 36 days' holiday, and rejected the allegation that the respondent had falsified the leave record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under section 13 ERA 1996 for unpaid September 2022 wages and statutory sick pay for October 2022. The tribunal calculated some sick pay as due, but held that any sums were offset by holiday overpayment and the earlier payment of £862.17, so no wages were properly payable on termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.14 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- Rule 2
- Rule 29
- Rule 41
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.