Case 2407173/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jonathan Davies v Harold Davies and Partners Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407173/2022
- Decision date
- 24 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jonathan Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had worked for the respondent's family dairy business since 2000 and had been paid a flat £300 per week for a number of years. The tribunal found there was no written contract or written particulars of employment, and it preferred the claimant's evidence and that of Leslie Davies on the question of hours worked over Ronald Davies' account. It found the claimant usually worked about 12 hours per weekday and about 6 hours on Saturdays, making 66 hours per week during the relevant two-year period.
Applying the Agricultural Wages (England and Wales) Order 2012, the tribunal found the claimant was Craft grade 4 because he had worked in agriculture for at least two years and held and had disclosed a City & Guilds NVQ Level 3 in Livestock Production. It held that the first 39 hours per week had to be paid at least at the National Living Wage of £9.50 and overtime at the AWO minimum rate of £12.32. The tribunal rejected the respondent's attempted offsets for benefits such as car insurance and life insurance, and found there was no agreement or legal basis for an accommodation deduction. On that basis it calculated unpaid wages at £41,926.56 before subtracting £1,134.44 of additional payments, leaving £40,792.12.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found the AWO holiday year ran from 1 October to 30 September and that the claimant was entitled to 35 days' leave per year as a worker who worked more than five but not more than six days per week. It found there was no agreement to carry over untaken leave for 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2021, but that the claimant could claim pay in lieu for 7 days in the 2021-2022 holiday year. It awarded £1,380.89 for that claim. The tribunal also made an additional award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars, awarding 4 weeks' pay capped at £643 per week, which came to £2,572.00. The total award was £44,745.01, and the written notice stated that interest would run at 8% per annum from 25 April 2023 if unpaid after 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had been underpaid for the two-year period 15 September 2020 to 15 September 2022. It accepted he worked 66 hours per week, treated him as Craft grade 4 under the Agricultural Wages (England and Wales) Order 2012, and rejected unauthorised deductions for benefits and the proposed accommodation offset. It calculated unpaid wages at £41,926.56 before subtracting £1,134.44 of additional payments made by Leslie and Brenda Davies. | Upheld | — | £40,792 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 35 days' annual leave per year under the Agricultural Wages (England and Wales) Order 2012 and that there was no agreement allowing carry-over for the holiday year 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2021. It allowed a claim for 7 days' pay in lieu for the 2021-2022 holiday year and calculated the award as £1,380.89. | Upheld | — | £1,381 |
| Other | The tribunal made an additional award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had not provided written particulars of employment. It awarded 4 weeks' pay, calculated at the statutory cap of £643 per week, giving £2,572.00. | Upheld | — | £2,572 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £44,745
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- balance of probabilities
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23(4A) ERA 1996
- s.1(2) NMWA 1998
- s.17 NMWA 1998
- s.38 EA 2002
- Agricultural Wages (England and Wales) Order 2012
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.