Case 3314842/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314842/2019
- Decision date
- 23 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard evidence on oath and read documents from both parties. It dismissed the section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 claim for itemised pay statements after finding that the Claimant had been provided with itemised pay statements. It also dismissed the challenge to the Respondent's rolled-up holiday pay scheme under regulations 13 to 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, finding that the scheme was a consensual agreement for genuine holiday pay, represented a true addition to the contractual rate of pay for time worked, and had the necessary transparency and clarity to be lawful.
The Tribunal further dismissed the travel time claim under regulations 17 and 27 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, finding that travel time was paid so that the Claimant was not paid less than the national minimum wage and that travel expenses were also paid. In relation to the unauthorised deduction from wages claim under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and the holiday pay claim under regulations 13 and 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Tribunal did not finally determine any sum due at that hearing.
Instead, the Tribunal directed the parties to liaise to try to agree any shortfall in wages and rolled-up holiday for the period 31 January 2019 to 14 May 2019, stated that any claim relating to an earlier period would be out of time, and required the parties to report by 4 November 2020 whether those claims had been resolved. If not resolved, the case was to be relisted for a further hearing on 25 November 2020 to consider what further sums, if any, were payable by way of wages and holiday.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 claim for itemised pay statements; the Tribunal found the Claimant had been provided with itemised pay statements. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Challenge to the Respondent's rolled-up holiday pay scheme under regulations 13-16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; the Tribunal found the scheme was consensual, involved genuine holiday pay, and had sufficient transparency and clarity to be lawful. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Travel time claim under regulations 17 and 27 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015; the Tribunal found travel time was paid so the Claimant was not paid less than the national minimum wage and that travel expenses were also paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages claim under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996; the Tribunal directed the parties to liaise to agree any shortfall in wages for the period 31 January 2019 to 14 May 2019, noted any earlier period would be out of time, and did not make a final monetary award. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim under regulations 13 and 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; the Tribunal directed the parties to liaise to agree any shortfall during the period 31 January 2019 to 14 May 2019, noted any earlier period would be out of time, and did not make a final monetary award. |
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.