Case 3305786/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Karl Engel (Representative) For the v KC Bakery Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3305786/2021
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Conley Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Karl Engel (Representative) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss Jessica Engel, brought claims arising from pay, holiday pay, the absence of a written statement of terms, and itemised payslips. The tribunal heard the case at Cambridge on 24 February 2022 in the absence of both parties, with Mr Karl Engel appearing for the claimant. The unfair dismissal complaint had already been dismissed earlier in the proceedings because the claimant did not have the two years' service required by s.108 ERA 1996.
On the pay claim, the tribunal found that the written contract supplied on 26 November 2020 was a later template and incorrectly stated an hourly rate of £9. The tribunal accepted that the agreed contractual rate was £8 per hour, that the claimant worked 9 hours per week at weekends, and that she was entitled to furlough pay from 6 April 2020 until she was properly notified of lay-off on 28 October 2020. On that basis, she should have received £1,670.40 but had been paid £1,590.84, so the tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages of £79.56.
The tribunal also found that by 28 October 2020 the claimant had accrued 29.08 hours of untaken holiday. Because there was no agreement allowing carry-over of unused leave from the previous holiday year, the tribunal limited the award to accrued leave in the current year and ordered £240 gross for holiday pay. It further found that the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of particulars at the start of employment, and that the later document remained defective because it misstated the hourly rate. Under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, the tribunal awarded four weeks' pay, assessed at £288.
For itemised pay statements, the tribunal found that the May to August 2021 payslips did not show the gross hourly rate, hours per week, gross weekly pay, net weekly pay, or a declaration of no deductions. It declared that there had been a failure to provide fully itemised pay statements, but made no financial award, describing the breach as technical and finding no actual detriment. The total award ordered was £607.56.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Removed earlier in the proceedings because the claimant had not worked for the respondent for the two-year qualifying period in s.108 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had been underpaid during the 6 April 2020 to 28 October 2020 period and ordered repayment of the gross shortfall. | Upheld | — | £80 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay on termination was awarded for accrued but untaken leave, calculated on a pro rata basis. | Upheld | — | £240 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment. The tribunal awarded four weeks' pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £288 |
| Other | Failure to provide fully itemised pay statements for May, June, July and August 2021 was declared, but no financial award was made because the tribunal treated it as a technical breach only. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £608
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.1(1) and s.1(4) ERA 1996
- s.8(1) ERA 1996
- Coales v John Wood & Co (Solicitors) [1986] ICR 71
- Ridge v HM Land Registry UKEAT/0098/10
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.