Case 2501191/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Matthews v Tees Valley Community Asset Preservation Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501191/2020
- Decision date
- 8 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Matthews
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Matthews' complaint about being paid for 7.5 hours per weekend shift instead of 8.5 hours was well founded. It directed the parties to try to agree the amount owing, and if they could not, there would be a separate hearing to determine it. The tribunal also upheld the separate complaints about Sunday pay for the period 1 April 2020 to 31 May 2020 and notice pay for 1 to 8 June 2020, ordering £220.50 on the Sunday-pay claim and £76.50 on the notice-pay claim.
The tribunal further held that the holiday and working-time complaints were well founded. It awarded £10.25 for accrued untaken holiday in the leave year ending 31 March 2019 and £76.50 for accrued untaken holiday in the leave year ending 31 March 2020. It also upheld the regulation 16 Working Time Regulations 1998 claim concerning leave taken on 19 October 2019, 12 December 2019 and one day in March 2020, but left the amount due to a separate hearing. It ordered £81 on the regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998 claim for leave accrued and untaken between 1 April 2020 and 8 June 2020.
The tribunal found that when the proceedings began the respondent was in breach of its duty under section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 in the sum of £153, described as two weeks' pay. It rejected the complaint that Mr Matthews should have been paid until 6pm rather than 5.30pm, or that work after 5.30pm entitled him to additional remuneration under section 17 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and it dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
10 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 about being paid for 7.5 hours per weekend shift instead of 8.5 hours was well founded; amount owing is to be determined at a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Sunday pay claim for 1 April 2020 to 31 May 2020; award of £220.50, calculated as £688.50 less £468 already paid. | Upheld | — | £221 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Notice pay for 1 to 8 June 2020; award of £76.50. | Upheld | — | £77 |
| Breach of contract | Accrued untaken holiday in the leave year ending 31 March 2019; damages of £10.25. | Upheld | — | £10 |
| Working time regulations | Regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 claim for leave taken on 19 October 2019, 12 December 2019 and one day in March 2020; amount owing is to be determined separately. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Accrued untaken holiday in the leave year ending 31 March 2020; damages of £76.50. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
- regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 17 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998
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.