Case 3301745/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person assisted by his wife, Mrs A Kiernan. For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3301745/2020
- Decision date
- 20 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Bloom Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person assisted by his wife, Mrs A Kiernan. For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim of unlawful deduction of wages, described in the judgment as outstanding holiday pay, arising from two days holiday taken on 31 October 2019 and 1 November 2019. The tribunal heard from the claimant, his wife, and the respondent's witness, and recorded that much of the background was agreed. It identified Regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and sections 221 to 224 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as the basis for calculating holiday pay by reference to a week's pay and the relevant 12-week reference period.
On the figures agreed or found, the tribunal held that the claimant had gross earnings of £4,460.76 over 502.75 hours, giving an hourly rate of £8.87. It found that the claimant was entitled to be paid for 16 hours in total for the two holiday days, treating 8 hours per day as the normal working day for the respondent. That calculation produced a gross sum of £141.92.
The tribunal noted that the claimant accepted he had received £141.92. It therefore concluded that no other sums were due and dismissed the unlawful deduction of wages claim in full.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim pleaded as outstanding holiday pay. The tribunal calculated holiday pay at £141.92 for 16 hours at £8.87 per hour, but found the claimant had already received that sum, so no further amount was due. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- sections 221-224 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.