Case 3200771/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Makarawicz v Scarpetta Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200771/2022
- Decision date
- 10 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Makarawicz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss D Makarawicz was employed by Scarpetta Ltd as a general manager from 24 August 2021 and resigned on 18 October 2021. During her notice period she said she worked substantial additional hours and sought payment for them. The tribunal recorded that her contract stated overtime was not paid, but it also found that the Respondent later issued a final payslip on 28 January 2022 showing a bonus of £2,000 gross taxable pay and £1,607.24 net, which was not paid to her. The tribunal held that by issuing that payslip the Respondent had effectively agreed to pay those monies, and it therefore upheld the unlawful deduction from wages complaint and awarded £1,607.24 net.
On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted the Claimant's evidence that she had not taken holidays during her employment. It rejected the Respondent's case that text messages about 14 August, 21 August and 24 August were requests for holiday, finding instead that those dates were identified before she had commenced employment and were not annual leave requests. The tribunal found that the Claimant had accrued three days' untaken holiday and that holiday pay was due under the Working Time Regulations. The operative award for that claim was £624.00.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the Respondent issued a final payslip on 28 January 2022 showing a bonus/payment of £2,000 gross taxable pay and £1,607.24 net, and that by issuing the payslip it had effectively agreed to pay those monies but did not do so. | Upheld | — | £1,607 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal accepted that the Claimant had not taken holiday during employment, rejected the Respondent's reliance on text messages said to show three days' leave, and found that the Claimant had accrued three days' untaken holiday. The reasoning refers to a daily rate of £26.00, but the judgment's operative award is £624.00. | Upheld | — | £624 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,231
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.13(3) ERA 1996
- Regulation 14(1) WTR 1998
- Regulation 14(2) WTR 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.