Case 2501192/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Matthews v Tees Valley Community Asset Preservation Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501192/2020
- Decision date
- 31 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Matthews
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the complaint that the respondent underpaid the claimant for weekend shifts by paying for 7.5 hours instead of 8.5 hours per shift between 24 November 2018 and 31 March 2020. That head was found well founded, but the amount owing was left to be determined at a separate hearing unless the parties could agree it.
It also upheld the complaint that the respondent had not paid £76.50 for each Saturday in the period 1 April 2020 to 31 May 2020 and ordered £220.50, reflecting 9 x £76.50 less £468 already paid. The tribunal further upheld the notice pay complaint for 1 to 8 June 2020 and ordered £76.50. It found that the respondent had failed to pay accrued untaken holiday for the leave year ending 31 March 2019 and ordered damages of £24.77.
On holiday-related claims under the Working Time Regulations 1998, the tribunal found that the respondent had not paid the full amount due under regulation 16 for leave taken in the leave year ending 31 March 2020, but the amount was not quantified in this judgment and was left for a separate hearing. It also upheld the regulation 14 claim for leave accrued and untaken between 1 April 2020 and 8 June 2020 and ordered £81. Separately, it found that when proceedings began the respondent was in breach of section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 of £153, equivalent to two weeks' pay.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint that the claimant should have been paid until 6pm rather than 5.30pm, or that work after 5.30pm entitled her to extra pay under section 17 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It also dismissed the complaint about accrued untaken holiday for the leave year ending 31 March 2020. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
9 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 | The tribunal found the complaint well founded in respect of weekend shifts worked between 24 November 2018 and 31 March 2020, where the respondent paid for 7.5 hours per shift instead of 8.5 hours. The judgment also described the issue as a breach of contract claim. Remedy was to be determined at a separate hearing if the parties could not agree the amount owing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint about not paying £76.50 for each Saturday in the period 1 April 2020 to 31 May 2020 succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay £220.50, calculated as 9 x £76.50 less £468 already paid. | Upheld | — | £221 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint about notice pay for 1 to 8 June 2020 succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay £76.50. | Upheld | — | £77 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal upheld the complaint that the respondent failed to pay an amount due in respect of accrued untaken holiday in the leave year ending 31 March 2019. Damages of £24.77 were ordered. | Upheld | — | £25 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found well founded the complaint that the respondent failed to pay the full amount due under regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for leave taken in the leave year ending 31 March 2020, including leave taken on 12 December 2019, 17 January 2020, 16 February 2020 and 4 March 2020. Remedy was left for a separate hearing. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- regulation 16 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 17 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.