Case 2408500/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrzej Haciski v SJ Bargh Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408500/2022
- Decision date
- 11 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrzej Haciski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Andrzej Haciski brought a claim for unpaid holiday pay against SJ Bargh Limited. Employment Judge Cline, sitting alone at Manchester by CVP on 3 April 2023, held that the claim was well-founded to the extent that the Respondent should have included the bank holiday premium when calculating the Claimant’s average remuneration for holiday pay.
The tribunal also held that the bank holiday premium inclusion only applied to the first 20 days of holiday for the relevant annual period(s). It rejected the Claimant’s argument that the Respondent was not permitted to omit weeks when he did not work each working day and instead had to take into account full weeks from more than 52 weeks previously.
No figure was determined in the judgment. Instead, the tribunal directed the parties to exchange proposed calculations by specified dates and encouraged them to agree or narrow the remaining issues, with provision for a further one-day hearing if necessary to determine the calculation of holiday pay in line with the tribunal’s findings.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claim for unpaid holiday pay succeeded in part: the tribunal held that the Respondent should have included the bank holiday premium when calculating the Claimant’s average remuneration for holiday pay. The tribunal rejected the Claimant’s separate argument that weeks in which he did not work each working day could not be omitted and that full weeks from more than 52 weeks previously had to be used instead. | Upheld | — | — |
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.