Case 2414961/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Flesh v Mr M Brownhill trading as Cheshire Tree and Lawn Care Ltd FINAL HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414961/2019
- Decision date
- 3 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Flesh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr S Flesh’s claims were well-founded against Mr M Brownhill trading as Cheshire Tree and Lawn Care Ltd. The employment ran from 8 July 2019 to 22 November 2019. The tribunal found that no contract of employment or statutory statement of employment particulars had been issued, and that no itemised pay slips had been provided. It also recorded that the parties had no detailed written record of the agreed terms, which contributed to the dispute over hours and holiday.
On wages, the tribunal accepted that the workday should be treated as starting at 7.30am and ending at 4.00pm once loading the van, travelling to site, and returning to the yard were included. It rejected the respondent’s basis for paying only a 35-hour week and found an underpayment of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The underpayment was calculated as 20 weeks at 5 hours per week at £9.00 per hour, giving £900.00 gross.
On holiday pay, the tribunal applied the Working Time Regulations and found that the claimant’s holiday year ran from 8 July 2019 to 22 November 2019, a period of 138 days. It found that only one bank holiday in that period had been paid, that a further 3 days of holiday had been taken and paid for, and that the proportionate annual entitlement was 11 days. The tribunal therefore held that 7 days of holiday remained outstanding, at £72.00 per day, giving £504.00 gross.
The tribunal also upheld the complaint about statutory employment particulars and awarded two weeks' pay, calculated as 40 hours at £9.00 per hour for £720.00 gross. It upheld the complaint about itemised pay statements as well. Paragraph 28 of the reasons refers to £585.00, but the formal order at paragraph 32 and the overall total use £535.00 for that head of claim. After crediting an unexplained payment of £192.98 made on 6 December 2019, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,466.02 gross in total.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal found that no statutory statement of employment particulars had been issued, contrary to Part 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded two weeks' pay because of the short length of employment. | Upheld | — | £720 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the contractual working day was 7.30am to 4.00pm once loading, travel to site and return to the yard were included, producing an underpayment of wages of 20 weeks at 5 hours per week at £9.00 per hour. | Upheld | — | £900 |
| Holiday pay | Applying the Working Time Regulations, the tribunal held that the claimant was owed 7 days' holiday pay for the period 8 July 2019 to 22 November 2019. | Upheld | — | £504 |
| Other | This was the claim for non-provision of itemised pay statements. Paragraph 28 states that £585.00 was appropriate, but the formal order and total calculation at paragraph 32 use £535.00; the remedy amount here follows the formal order and total. | Upheld | — | £535 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,466
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Part 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations
- balance of probabilities
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.