Mr. Ashley Woods v Michael Gallagher t/a GCS Group — 2023

Mr Ashley Woods was employed by Michael Gallagher t/a GCS Group as an Engineering Workshop Foreman on £627 gross per week. After his resignation on 4 November 2022, the parties agreed he would not work his notice. The respondent later wrote to say he had overtaken 4.47 days of annual leave and that any statutory sick pay issue would be sorted out. The claimant brought complaints about unpaid notice pay, unpaid holiday pay, unpaid statutory sick pay, and a deduction from his final wages.

The notice pay and holiday pay complaints were dismissed on withdrawal. On the statutory sick pay issue, the tribunal found that the first three days were waiting days and that the claimant was only entitled to two days' SSP. The respondent had paid £39.74 shortly before the hearing, so although the tribunal found that the sum had not been paid when due and there had been an unauthorised deduction, no further payment was ordered.

The tribunal upheld the complaint about the final wage deduction. It found that the claimant was owed £627 for his final week of work and that the respondent deducted the whole amount to recover alleged overpaid holiday pay. Applying Hill v Chapell, the tribunal held that holiday pay was not an overpayment for the purposes of section 14(1)(a) ERA 1996 in the absence of a relevant agreement, so the deduction was unauthorised. It ordered payment of £627 plus a section 38 Employment Act 2002 adjustment, bringing the award to £1,769.

The tribunal also found that the respondent had not provided a compliant written statement of initial employment particulars. The letter it had given omitted the start date, sufficient holiday accrual detail, and pension details. Although section 38 required a mandatory uplift, the tribunal awarded only the minimum two weeks' pay, capped at £571 per week, because the respondent had set out some key terms and was not a large employer with a dedicated HR function. It declined any ACAS uplift under section 207A TULR(C)A 1992 because the failure to follow the Code was not found to be unreasonable.