Did not attend and was not represented. For the v Mr Luke Hutchings, Solicitor. — 2019

The claimant, Mr P Kerrigan, did not attend the hearing. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Nicholas Clifton, Mr Paul Phillips and Ms Michelle Faber. The claim was for compensation for untaken leave under regulations 14 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 following the claimant’s resignation with effect from 31 August 2018.

The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed from 14 August 2017 to 31 August 2018 as store manager at the Spar store at Six Mile Bottom, with normal hours of 42 per week. It found that, in early May 2018 and again for the week ending 14 July 2018, the claimant asked to be paid holiday entitlement rather than take leave, and that Mr Clifton and Mr Phillips agreed. The tribunal accepted the respondents’ evidence that the hours later shown on payroll emails for 19 May 2018, 26 May 2018 and 14 July 2018 were cashed-in holiday payments made at the claimant’s request, not overtime or a bonus.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s later contention that the disputed hours were overtime or bonus payments. It found it was not credible that he had worked the very large overtime hours recorded, and there was no evidence of any bonus scheme. It found that 139.5 hours had been paid as cashed-in holiday. On the holiday entitlement issue, the tribunal considered both the default leave-year position under regulation 13(3)(b)(ii) and an alternative arrangement reflected in an email of 17 September 2018 stating that the holiday year ran from August 2017 to March 2019.

Applying the Working Time Regulations and the authorities of Robinson-Steele v RD Retail Services Ltd and Lyddon v Englefield Brickwork Ltd, the tribunal held that the respondent could set the cashed-in holiday hours off against the claimant’s entitlement because the payments were made in a transparent and comprehensible manner. On the tribunal’s calculation, there was no balance due to the claimant; even on the most generous interpretation, there was no merit in the claim. The claim for compensation in lieu of leave was dismissed.