Case 2502013/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bell v Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2502013/2020
- Decision date
- 1 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Bell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim concerned the method for calculating Mr Bell's annual leave pay. Remedy was not within the scope of the hearing, and the agreed issue was whether holiday pay should be calculated under an asserted contractual 7/21 split term, or otherwise under section 221(2) or section 221(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found there was insufficient evidence for Mr Bell to rely on the asserted 7/21 split term, either as an express contractual term or as one incorporated by custom and practice. There was no contemporaneous documentary evidence showing the term existed or had been applied, and the respondent's evidence was that it had calculated annual leave pay by reference to an averaging period since the 2011 transfer.
The tribunal found that Mr Bell had normal working hours, fixed shift patterns, and a fixed hourly rate which did not vary by day, time, or amount of work done during normal working hours. It held that section 222 ERA and section 221(3) ERA did not apply, and that the correct method for calculating annual leave pay was section 221(2) ERA. A remedy hearing was to follow.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Liability-only decision on the basis for calculating annual leave pay. The tribunal found the claimant could not rely on the asserted contractual 7/21 split term, but held that holiday pay should be calculated under section 221(2) ERA rather than by averaging under section 221(3) ERA. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- section 13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 16 Working Time Regulations 1998
- sections 221 to 224 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 221(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 221(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 222 Employment Rights Act 1996
- custom and practice: reasonable, notorious and certain
- Bond v CAV Co [1983] IRLR 360
- Henry v London General Transport Services Ltd [2001] IRLR 132
- Dudley Metropolitan Council v Willetts [2017] UKEAT/0334/16/JOJ
- British Airways v Williams [2012] ICR 847
- East Midlands Ambulance Trust v Flowers UKEAT/0235/17
- Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton
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.