Case 3302892/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Balakumar v Menzies Aviation (UK) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3302892/2022
- Decision date
- 30 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Balakumar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant remained employed by the respondent as a baggage handler. The tribunal treated the claim as one under the Working Time Regulations 1998, rather than breach of contract or unauthorised deductions, because the issue was accrued untaken holiday entitlement at the end of the 2021 holiday year.
The tribunal found that the claimant had 9 hours of outstanding holiday entitlement at the end of 2021, not 25 hours, because he had taken two further days of holiday in December. It also found that the claimant had repeatedly tried to book holiday and that his email of 10 December 2021 asking for his remaining holiday to be booked on “any day” specified the days to be taken for the purposes of Regulation 15, given the respondent’s earlier communications about limited availability.
The tribunal declined to reduce the award under the ACAS code. It found the claimant’s failure to use the grievance process was not unreasonable in the circumstances, including the respondent’s stated position and the unlikelihood that a grievance would have altered the outcome. The respondent was ordered to pay £113.57.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The Working Time Regulations 1998 claim was partially successful. The tribunal found the claimant had 9 hours of accrued untaken holiday rather than the 25 hours he claimed, and that his 10 December 2021 email was valid notice under Regulation 15. | Upheld | — | £114 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £114
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- ACAS code of practice
- balance of probability
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.