Case 2602017/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Cropley v VPS PVT Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602017/2023
- Decision date
- 29 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Welch REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Cropley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent as a counter clerk from 20 January 2023 until 2 August 2023, working 24 hours a week. She brought claims for unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay following early conciliation. The respondent did not attend the remote CVP hearing on 29 February 2024; the clerk attempted to contact the respondent by telephone and email before Employment Judge Welch proceeded in its absence, having regard to the overriding objective and the admissions in the response form.
On the evidence of the claimant, the Tribunal found that during 17 July to 2 August 2023 the claimant worked 79.5 hours for which she was not paid, amounting to £828.39. The Tribunal also found that the claimant's pro rata holiday entitlement left 48.4 hours of accrued but untaken holiday on termination, valued at £10.42 per hour, totalling £504.33.
Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal concluded that both sums had been unlawfully deducted. The claims succeeded and the claimant was awarded a gross total of £1,333.72.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 17 July 2023 to 2 August 2023 (79.5 unpaid hours). | Upheld | — | £828 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found holiday pay claim well-founded; 48.4 hours unpaid holiday at £10.42/hour on termination. | Upheld | — | £504 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,334
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.