Case 2410160/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Slifkin v GH Sheldon Wholesale Baker Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2410160/2021
- Decision date
- 1 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Slifkin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a Transport Manager for the respondent from 10 May 2021 to 6 August 2021 at an agreed daily rate of £160. There was no written contract of employment. After Peter Oxton left, the claimant worked weekends as well as weekdays, and the respondent later said he had been overpaid because he did not work full days at weekends and should be paid only by reference to the clocking system.
The tribunal found that the respondent had an internal pro rata policy for daily-rate workers who worked less than eight hours, but that policy was never conveyed to the claimant verbally, in a contract, or through the employee handbook. In the absence of any other agreement, the claimant was entitled to his daily rate for each Saturday and Sunday he worked. The deduction of seven days' pay was therefore unlawful under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was owed £1,120 in unpaid wages on termination; after crediting the £547.20 already paid on the final payslip, the award for unlawful deduction from wages was £572.80 gross.
The claimant gave one week's notice on 6 August 2021, but the respondent decided to summarily dismiss him and did not pay notice pay. The tribunal held that he was entitled to one week's notice under section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded £800 for breach of contract. It also applied regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and found that, because no leave had been taken and 25% of the leave year had expired, the claimant had accrued seven days' holiday entitlement, worth £1,120.
Because the respondent had not provided a written statement of employment particulars and there was no contract of employment, the tribunal made an additional award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. It assessed that award at four weeks' pay, namely £3,200.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the deduction of seven days' pay was not an overpayment because no pro rata policy had been conveyed to the claimant; £547.20 had already been paid on the final payslip, leaving £572.80 gross due. | Upheld | — | £573 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay after summary dismissal; the claimant gave one week's notice on 6 August 2021 and the tribunal awarded one week's pay. | Upheld | — | £800 |
| Holiday pay | Regulation 14 WTR 1998 claim; the tribunal found seven days' accrued leave at termination and awarded payment in lieu. | Upheld | — | £1,120 |
| Other | Additional award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £3,200 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,693
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 86(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 86(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.