Mr Petar Petkov v Bath Group Ltd — 2018

Mr Petkov's unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found that he did not have the requisite qualifying service under ss94/108 ERA 1996. The tribunal therefore dismissed that claim. It also recorded that the claimant's remaining pay claims under s23 ERA, relating to overpayment of tax, discrepancies in pay slips and a shortfall in pension contributions, were dismissed because he did not seek to pursue them.

The tribunal upheld the claimant's holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and his claim for notice pay as a breach of contract. It further found that the respondent had breached s1 ERA by failing to provide a statement of initial employment particulars, and breached s8 ERA by failing to provide an itemised pay statement for April 2019. The written schedule recorded the claimant's holiday entitlement and notice period, including that his notice period reflected the statutory notice period under s86 ERA 1996.

The monetary awards were £737.55 gross for holiday pay, £491.70 gross for notice pay, and £983.40 gross as the equivalent of 2 weeks' pay for the s1 ERA breach. The judgment directed payment of those sums within 14 days of the order being sent to the parties.