Case 3320671/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Adam Adamou, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3320671/2019
- Decision date
- 31 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Adam Adamou, of counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Y Pitarch, worked for Kattz (AH) Limited at Addison House. The case was brought as a section 23 ERA 1996 unlawful deductions claim and concerned four heads of loss: an alleged bonus of £1,920, holiday pay of £599.94, a night shift allowance, and a £105 deduction for a mobile telephone. The tribunal also recorded the contractual background, including the 1 May 2018 email varying the claimant's remuneration and benefits and the later garden leave letter of 28 February 2019.
The bonus claim failed. The tribunal found that the claimant never became registered manager and therefore could only succeed if a separate agreement for a bonus had been made at the 4 December 2018 meeting. Having considered the evidence of both witnesses, the tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant had proved entitlement to a bonus. It noted that, if any bonus had been due, it would have been 6% of £29,000, namely £1,740, rather than £1,920.
The holiday pay claim also failed. Although the March 2019 leave request form had not been signed by Ms Ibitoye, the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant had in fact taken 4 days' annual leave in March 2019 and had therefore exhausted her entitlement for the first quarter of 2019. The lack of formal approval on the form was not treated as determinative.
The remaining two heads succeeded. The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to one night shift allowance of £93.96 because the garden leave letter preserved her contractual and payroll benefits until 31 March 2019. It also held that clause 4.3 of the contract did not authorise a deduction for a mobile phone returned damaged or not returned by the employer's chosen date. The £105 deduction was therefore an unlawful deduction from wages. The total awarded was £198.96.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for £1,920 said to be a performance bonus linked to the Ofsted rating. The tribunal found the claimant had not proved entitlement to a bonus. It noted that, if any bonus were due, it would have been 6% of £29,000 (£1,740), not £1,920. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for £599.94 in respect of accrued untaken annual leave. The tribunal found the claimant had taken 4 days annual leave in March 2019 and had therefore used her full entitlement for the first quarter of 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for one night shift allowance. The tribunal held the 28 February 2019 garden leave letter preserved contractual and payroll benefits to 31 March 2019, so the claimant was entitled to the £93.96 night shift payment even though she did not work the shift. | Upheld | — | £94 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerning the £105 deducted from final wages for a mobile telephone returned damaged. The tribunal held clause 4.3 did not authorise deductions for non-return or damage to property and found the deduction unlawful under section 13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £105 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £199
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 23 ERA 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 25(4) ERA 1996
- balance of probabilities
- contra proferentem principle
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.