Case 2413360/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mohamed Patel v Diamond Bus Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2413360/2020
- Decision date
- 17 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mohamed Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mohamed Patel was a bus driver whose employment transferred to Diamond Bus (North West) Limited on 11 August 2019. The tribunal found that his holiday entitlement was 35 days, split between 20 days of regulation 13 WTR leave, 8 days of additional regulation 13A leave, and 7 days of contractual leave under the Unite agreement. Diamond Bus accepted that the first 20 days of leave in each holiday year were Working Time Directive leave and had to be paid at the higher holiday pay rate, including regular voluntary overtime, but disputed that the remaining leave was payable in the same way. The claimant withdrew his furlough-pay complaint once he accepted the difference was explained by the furlough cap.
The tribunal held that the Unite agreement did not require the additional leave or contractual leave to be paid by reference to normal remuneration including voluntary overtime. Relying on Bear Scotland and Flowers, it concluded that the normal-remuneration approach applied only to the first 20 days of leave in each holiday year. It therefore upheld the holiday-pay complaints only so far as they related to WTD leave, finding unlawful deductions in respect of the identified leave days in the 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 holiday years.
On time limits, the tribunal held that the first claim was in time because the September 2019 deduction formed part of a series of deductions continuing through to the deduction relating to 26 July 2020, and it applied Ekwelem in treating the intervening deductions as part of the same series for limitation purposes. It accepted the claimant's calculations of the underpayments and, for the first claim, applied a 15% uplift for the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code in dealing with the grievance; for the second claim, it applied a 5% uplift for delays and defects in the grievance process. The final gross awards were £1,261.96 in case 2413360/2020 and £1,012.11 in case 2409239/2021, giving a total award of £2,274.07 before tax and national insurance deductions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint in case 2413360/2020 that the respondent failed to pay furlough pay at the correct rate for 3 May 2020 to 13 June 2020. The claimant accepted the shortfall was due to the furlough cap and withdrew the complaint; it was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay complaint in case 2413360/2020 succeeded for unpaid higher-rate holiday pay on WTD leave. The tribunal found unlawful deductions of £1,097.36 and applied a 15% ACAS Code uplift, producing a gross award of £1,261.96. | Upheld | — | £1,262 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay complaint in case 2409239/2021 succeeded for unpaid higher-rate holiday pay on WTD leave. The tribunal found unlawful deductions of £963.92 and applied a 5% ACAS Code uplift, producing a gross award of £1,012.11. | Upheld | — | £1,012 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,274
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23(2) ERA 1996
- s.23(4) ERA 1996
- Bear Scotland and ors v Fulton and ors
- Flowers and others v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
- Ekwelem v Excel Passenger Service Ltd
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Marks and Spencer Plc v Williams-Ryan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- Acetrip v Dogra
- Slade and anor v Biggs and ors
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.