Case 2410322/2019 · Employment Tribunal
1. Mrs D Bogusiewicz 2. Mrs A Tomczyk v The General Green Company — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410322/2019
- Decision date
- 3 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Mrs D Bogusiewicz 2. Mrs A Tomczyk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs D Bogusiewicz and Mrs A Tomczyk were employed by The General Green Company as cleaners. They brought claims in July 2019 for breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages, saying their pay should have included mileage and vehicle maintenance costs, payment for time spent collecting colleagues, and payment for travel time between customers' houses. The first claimant also pursued a holiday pay point, but that was withdrawn after the respondent corrected the calculation.
On the breach of contract claims, the tribunal found that neither contract contained any term entitling either claimant to reimbursement of mileage or maintenance costs. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the higher hourly rates paid to the claimants, £9.00 for the first claimant and £8.50 for the second claimant, were intended to compensate them for those costs. It also noted that both claimants were paid above the National Minimum Wage, and it dismissed both breach claims.
On the unlawful deduction claims, the tribunal found that the claimants were required to transport colleagues to customer houses and that the time spent doing so was wages properly payable. It also found that the claimants had a legal entitlement to pay for travel time between customers' houses. The respondent had already accepted that entitlement in relation to the first claimant and had paid her £297.27 on 22 July 2019, but the tribunal held that the balance remained recoverable and that the first claimant's series-of-deductions claim was in time under Poupart Limited v Hounsell & Others EAT 712/01. It awarded £2,931.58 gross to the first claimant and £2,473.50 gross to the second claimant.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | First claimant: claim for reimbursement of mileage and maintenance costs, pleaded at £3,496, was dismissed. The tribunal found no contractual entitlement to mileage reimbursement and accepted that the higher hourly rate compensated those costs. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant: claim succeeded in relation to unpaid wages for time spent collecting colleagues and travelling between customers' houses. The tribunal awarded £2,931.58 gross and said the £297.27 already paid could not be recovered again. | Upheld | — | £2,932 |
| Breach of contract | Second claimant: claim for reimbursement of mileage and maintenance costs, pleaded at £3,257.59, was dismissed. The tribunal found no contractual term entitling her to mileage reimbursement and accepted that the higher hourly rate covered those costs. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant: claim succeeded in relation to unpaid wages for time spent collecting colleagues and travelling between customers' houses. The tribunal awarded £2,473.50 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,474 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,405
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.24 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.25(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.3 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Article 3 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Poupart Limited v Hounsell & Others EAT 712/01
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.