Case 3327823/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Rodd v GMB Leisure Ltd and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 3327823/2017
- Decision date
- 17 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chudleigh
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr B Rodd
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Rodd worked as a receptionist at the Bucks Indoor Tennis Centre from 1995. The First Respondent took over the contract in April 2010 and the Second Respondent on 1 October 2017. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the claim against the Second Respondent because the liabilities under the employment contract transferred on the TUPE transfer, and it was proper that the Second Respondent had been added to the proceedings.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant had not taken all of the holiday to which he was entitled over a number of years, but that he had no contractual right to carry untaken holiday forward. It referred to the two-year limit in section 23(4)(A) ERA 1996 and to regulation 13(9)(a) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. For holiday accrued in leave years ending on or before 31 March 2017, the claim was dismissed because the entitlement had been lost at the end of the relevant leave year.
The position was different for the leave year from 1 April 2017 to 30 September 2017. The tribunal accepted Miss Ford's calculations and Mr Britton's written acknowledgement of 30 September 2017 that holiday pay was owing. It found that the claimant had been underpaid for 25.5 hours of holiday taken in that period at a rate of £7.50 per hour, and awarded £191.25. Liability for that sum transferred to the Second Respondent under TUPE, and the Second Respondent was ordered to pay it.
The tribunal also rejected the claim that the claimant was contractually entitled to an enhanced evening rate from April 2016 onwards. It accepted that he had previously been paid more for evening work than for day work, but found that from April 2016 the contractual rate was the same for both shifts. That part of the unlawful deduction from wages claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 | Holiday pay claimed for periods up to 31 March 2017. The tribunal held the claimant had no contractual right to carry holiday forward from year to year, and that those earlier claims were not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay for the leave year beginning 1 April 2017 and ending 30 September 2017. The tribunal accepted that 25.5 hours of taken holiday had not been paid and that liability transferred to the Second Respondent under TUPE. | Upheld | — | £191 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for an enhanced evening rate from April 2016 onwards. The tribunal found there was no contractual entitlement to a higher evening rate and that the contractual rate was the same for day and evening work from April 2016. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £191
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 23(4)(A) ERA 1996
- regulation 13(9)(a) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 4(2)(a) TUPE 2006
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.