Case 3307974/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Ms Magda Bartkoska — 2021
- Case reference
- 3307974/2020
- Decision date
- 19 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tuck QC
- Venue
- via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Duher worked for Magda Fun House Limited as a child carer from 1 May 2019 until her effective date of termination on 31 May 2020. The tribunal accepted that the parties had no clear written contract, that the respondent said the arrangement was for 25 hours per week at £12 per hour, and that the claimant was paid monthly amounts which did not identify any holiday pay. On the evidence, the judge concluded that the claimant was being paid on an annualised basis for 38 weeks' term-time work spread over 52 weeks, but not for holiday pay.
Applying the Working Time Regulations and the reasoning in Harpur Trust v Brazel, the tribunal found that the claimant had not been paid any holiday pay during her employment. It held that she took leave in line with school term dates, that the last leave before the pandemic was at the end of February 2020, and that she suffered a series of unlawful deductions in relation to holiday pay. The tribunal therefore awarded 5.6 weeks' holiday pay, quantified at £1,680.
The notice pay claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the 8 May 2020 text saying the respondent would suspend co-operation due to the pandemic and would not need the claimant until further notice amounted to notice of termination. Because the claimant was paid until the end of May 2020, the tribunal held that the respondent had met the obligation to pay one week's notice under section 86 ERA 1996.
The tribunal also dealt with the respondent's failure to provide written terms of employment. It found there had been no written contract and no clarity about the hourly rate or holiday arrangements, and it made the minimum award of two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, which it quantified at £600. The total award was £2,280.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had not been paid holiday pay during her employment, treated the missing holiday pay as a series of unlawful deductions, and awarded 5.6 weeks' holiday pay for the period from 1 May 2019 to 8 May 2020. | Upheld | — | £1,680 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal accepted that the text message of 8 May 2020 amounted to notice of termination, and because the claimant was paid until 31 May 2020 it found the one week's notice pay obligation under section 86 ERA 1996 had been satisfied. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to provide written terms of employment and made the minimum award of two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,280
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Harpur Trust v Brazel [2019] EWCA Civ 1402
- section 221-224 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Bear Scotland v Fulton [2015] IRLR 150
- section 86 ERA 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.