Case 4100312/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Matthew Keith v Macdonald Hotels — 2021
- Case reference
- 4100312/2021
- Decision date
- 5 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Bradley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Matthew Keith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMatthew Keith began work for MacDonald Hotels as a chef de partie on or about 16 November 2019, working on the basis of 40 hours per week and 28 days' paid leave. His employment ended on 26 August 2020. The claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal claim before the hearing, and the tribunal therefore dismissed it under Rule 52.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he was suspended from 11 August 2020 until his dismissal on 26 August 2020 and that he had also worked three unpaid days immediately before suspension. On the payslips and the evidence before it, the tribunal found the contractual rate was £9 per hour, not £10 per hour. Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and finding no contractual provision or prior written consent authorising non-payment, it held that wages had been unlawfully deducted. It awarded £1,008 gross for the suspension period and £216 gross for the three unpaid days, both ordered net of income tax.
On annual leave, the tribunal applied regulation 13(3)(b)(ii) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and found the leave year began on 16 November 2019. By 26 August 2020 the claimant had accrued 21 days' leave, had taken or been paid for 6 days, and therefore had 15 days outstanding. Using a weekly rate of £360 based on 40 hours at £9 per hour, it awarded £1,080 gross in lieu of accrued but untaken leave under regulation 14(2). The claim about an overcharge for live-in costs was dismissed for lack of written evidence, and the claim seeking an order that the respondent pay the claimant's income tax liability to HMRC was also dismissed, the tribunal noting the £916.60 tax rebate shown on the March 2020 payslip.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant told the tribunal he was not making an unfair dismissal claim; it was dismissed under Rule 52 following withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was suspended on full pay from 11 to 26 August 2020 but was not paid for that period; the award was for 14 days at 8 hours a day and £9 per hour, gross and net of tax as ordered. | Upheld | — | £1,008 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found three days' wages worked immediately before suspension had not been paid; the amount was calculated at £9 per hour for 8 hours on each of the three days. | Upheld | — | £216 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found 15 days of accrued but untaken leave remained due by 26 August 2020, after allowing for one week's leave in February 2020 and one day represented by the 23 June 2020 holiday payment. | Upheld | — | £1,080 |
| Other | The claim about an alleged overcharge for live-in costs was dismissed; the tribunal found no written evidence of an overcharge and said the material suggested a consistent £200 charge from January to July 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal made no award on the request for the respondent to pay the claimant's income tax liability to HMRC, noting a £916.60 tax rebate on 31 March 2020 and no basis for the order sought. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,304
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 13(3)(b)(ii) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 30(1)(b) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.