Case 2414152/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Mikulskaja v Tatra Rotalac Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414152/2021
- Decision date
- 14 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Humble REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Mikulskaja
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing the claimant confirmed she was not pursuing the statutory sick pay issue and advanced a claim for accrued holiday pay. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was entitled to 23 days' holiday each year and that some payslips omitted holiday coding, but on the payroll evidence it found she had in fact been paid her full 2019 entitlement, including days paid late on 9 January 2020. It also held that there was no contractual right to carry leave forward, that none of the Regulation 13(9) Working Time Regulations 1998 exceptions applied, and that the 2019 element was substantially out of time with no series of deductions under section 23(3) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the claimant's holiday on 2 January 2020 had been deducted from both her 2019 and 2020 leave records, leaving one additional day due at the end of 2020. It accepted the respondent's evidence that, because of furlough, employees were allowed to carry untaken 2020 leave into 2021, so the claimant should have been allocated one extra leave day at the start of 2021 and that day was not paid on termination. A separate complaint about 29 and 30 December 2020 failed because the respondent had given notice of an annual shutdown and the claimant had been paid for those days.
The tribunal therefore found breach of contract, unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of the Working Time Regulations, and ordered payment for one day of holiday pay. The written judgment is internally inconsistent on the amount: the opening disposal states £80.19, while paragraphs 8 and 10 state £89.10; the extracted total award follows the reasons and final order.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Same holiday-pay dispute. The tribunal rejected the 2019 element as paid and substantially out of time, but found one unpaid day remained due at termination. The written judgment is internally inconsistent on the sum, stating £80.19 in the opening disposal and £89.10 in the reasons/final order. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Same holiday-pay dispute; upheld only in respect of the one unpaid day at termination. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Same holiday-pay dispute; upheld only in respect of the one unpaid day at termination. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £89
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 13(9) Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 23(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.