Case 2501758/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Mr G Vials, solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501758/2021
- Decision date
- 19 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimants' joint management contract dated 22 March 2019, together with clause 7.2 and the respondent's 'free flow' policy, did not authorise the July 2021 deductions as operated. It found that the respondent's approach of using total wet sales, making only limited allowances for cleaning and cellar-service call-outs, and then deducting the shortfall without enquiring into the cause was not supported by the contract or the policy.
The tribunal accepted that the July 2021 payslips first showed a deduction of 10% of gross salary and a further amount said to be owed by each claimant, and that the claimants resigned while on holiday after seeing the payslips. It held that the failure to investigate the shortfall, together with the scale of the deduction and the company's own policy requiring analysis of the underlying cause, amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The constructive dismissal claim therefore succeeded.
At the remedy hearing on 21 October 2022, each claimant was awarded £1,622.89 for unlawful deductions from wages. Unfair dismissal compensation was then awarded at £10,764.08 for Mr Groom and £7,027.56 for Mrs Groom. The remedy judge also treated the accommodation allowance as remuneration for week's pay purposes under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, which affected the basic award calculation. The accrued holiday pay claims were dismissed, and no separate damages were awarded for breach of contract because the notice period had already been compensated within the unfair dismissal award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | At the remedy hearing the tribunal ordered payment of £1,622.89 to each claimant for unlawful deductions from wages, made up of the July 2021 deduction, the August 2021 salary element and half of the returnable bond with interest. | Upheld | — | £3,246 |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the July 2021 deductions, the lack of any enquiry into the shortfall and the respondent's failure to follow its own policy amounted to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence. At remedy it awarded unfair dismissal compensation of £10,764.08 to Mr Groom and £7,027.56 to Mrs Groom. | Upheld | — | £17,792 |
| Holiday pay | The remedy hearing dismissed the claims for accrued holiday pay at termination, finding that the claimants had already taken their full pro-rata holiday entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | No separate damages were awarded for breach of contract / wrongful dismissal because the unexpired notice period was already compensated within the unfair dismissal award. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,037
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,214
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £15,577
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13(1A) ERA 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- s.221-229 ERA 1996
- National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 regs 7, 9(e) and 16
- S and U Stores Ltd v Wilkes [1974] ICR 645
- Paggetti v Cobb UKEAT/136/01
- s.17 National Minimum Wage Act 1999
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.