Case 3310915/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Alexandru Bucur v The Soho Sandwich Company Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310915/2022
- Decision date
- 8 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Alexandru Bucur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Alexandru Bucur brought complaints about bank-holiday and holiday pay, Working Time Regulations entitlement, and a failure to provide written employment particulars. The tribunal found he had been employed by The Soho Sandwich Company Ltd since 1 October 2008 as production manager. It accepted the contractual holiday term in the bundle, under which he was entitled to 32 days' contractual holiday per year and, if required to work a bank holiday, was to be paid at double time and given a day in lieu.
The unlawful deduction claim failed because the claimant's own evidence showed he took 32 days' holiday in 2022 and 29 days in 2021, so the tribunal held that the claimed failure to give bank-holiday lieu days was not made out on the facts. The tribunal also found that he had taken 24 days' leave in earlier years, which meant he had taken his entitlement under regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It held that the claims under the Working Time Regulations failed, including because the authorities relied on by the claimant, including Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd, King v Sash Window Workshop and Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften e.V. v Shimizu, did not extend the carry-over principles to the additional leave under regulation 13A.
On limitation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant only became aware of the position around the end of May 2022 after asking for a copy of his contract and that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within the normal three-month period. It nevertheless recorded that the claim was presented within a reasonable time. The tribunal also accepted the claimant's evidence that he was not given a statement of employment particulars for some years after he started, and awarded three weeks' basic pay, £1,929, under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. It noted for completeness that because the claimant remained employed, he could not bring a breach of contract claim in the employment tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claimant accepted he took 32 days' holiday in 2022 and 29 days in 2021, so the tribunal found no factual basis for an unpaid bank-holiday or holiday-pay shortfall. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The Working Time Regulations claim failed. The tribunal found the claimant had taken his statutory 28-day entitlement and that the carry-over principles relied on did not assist in relation to additional leave under regulation 13A. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Award of three weeks' basic pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of initial employment particulars under section 1 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,929 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,929
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 30(2)(a) Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.13A Working Time Regulations 1998
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd [2022] ICR 818
- King v Sash Window Workshop and another [2018] ICR 693
- Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften e.V. v Shimizu C-684/16
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] ICR 53
- Nolan v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services EAT 0109/11
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.