Laura Jones v A Shelf Above the Rest Limited — 2023

Laura Jones was employed by A Shelf Above the Rest Limited from 21 July 2022 to 31 August 2022 as a Graphic Designer/Laser Engraver under a written contract providing for 20 hours a week at £17 an hour, monthly pay on the 28th, pro rata holiday, and one week's notice in the first six months. The respondent did not return a response and took no part in the proceedings. The tribunal heard sworn evidence from the claimant and found her to be an honest and credible witness.

The tribunal found that the claimant worked 26 hours in July 2022 and 94 hours in August 2022. She was paid £340 on 28 July 2022, leaving a shortfall of £102 for the 6 hours worked on 21 July 2022. The amount properly payable for August 2022 was £1,598. Following termination on 31 August 2022, the parties agreed that outstanding wages, holiday pay and notice pay would be paid on the next payroll date of 28 September 2022. The claimant's accrued holiday entitlement was 13 hours, worth £221 gross, and her contractual notice pay was £340 net.

The tribunal rejected the payslips in the bundle as reflecting payments that had not in fact been made. It found that the only payment proved before later credits was £200 on 5 September 2022. Further payments of £704.12 on 30 January 2023 and £50 on 27 March 2023 were credited against the wage arrears. After those credits, the tribunal found that £745.88 remained due for unpaid wages, together with £221 for holiday pay and £340 for notice pay, producing a total award of £1,306.88.

On time limits, the tribunal held that the unlawful deduction and holiday pay claims were presented in time because the relevant date was 28 September 2022, when the sums were agreed to be paid and became properly payable. The notice pay claim was out of time on its face because a breach of contract claim runs from the date of termination, 31 August 2022, but time was extended because the claimant reasonably misunderstood the distinction between the wage, holiday and contract claims, had only limited advice, and was misled by a payslip showing a later payment date. All three claims were therefore upheld.