Case 4100624/2020 · Employment Tribunal
: D Massie N Richardson Teodor Asaftei v Reliance (AB) Limited and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 4100624/2020
- Decision date
- 4 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland Members
- Panel members
- D Massie, N Richardson
Parties
3 namedClaimant
: D Massie N Richardson Teodor Asaftei
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as an assistant manager on a salary of £24,000. The tribunal found that his employment began with Deeside Food Limited on 5 July 2019 and had transferred under TUPE to Reliance (AB) Limited in about September 2019, so the complaint against the second respondent was dismissed. It also found that no written statement of employment particulars was given at any point and that the first respondent had agreed to make employer pension contributions of 4% but failed to do so for 23.29 weeks up to termination, for which £429.93 was awarded.
The claimant was suspended on 15 December 2019 and dismissed without notice on 31 December 2019. The tribunal accepted the claimant as credible and reliable and did not accept the first respondent witnesses' evidence on notice practice or on the suggestion that a £1,000 payment made on 4 October 2019 was holiday pay; it found that payment had been a loan repaid by wage deductions. In the absence of an express notice term, the tribunal found that one month's notice was reasonable in the restaurant trade for an assistant manager after probation and awarded £1,664.65.
The tribunal found that 10.5 days of accrued holiday remained unpaid at termination and awarded £806.72. For the failure to issue written particulars, liability was accepted but the tribunal considered it just and equitable to award the higher amount of four weeks' pay, £1,846.16. The total award was £4,747.46.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay employer pension contributions. The First Respondent accepted liability and the remedy sought. | Upheld | — | £430 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to give notice of termination. The tribunal found that one month's notice was reasonable in the circumstances. | Upheld | — | £1,665 |
| Holiday pay | 10.5 days of accrued holiday were unpaid at termination. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the £1,000 payment made on 4 October 2019 was holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £807 |
| Other | Failure to issue a written statement of employment particulars. No written terms were provided during employment, and the tribunal awarded four weeks' pay as just and equitable. | Upheld | — | £1,846 |
| Other | The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed. The reasons state that the employment had transferred under TUPE to the First Respondent in about September 2019 and that the Second Respondent was dissolved; the findings section contains inconsistent wording on the direction of transfer. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,747
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- balance of probabilities
- reasonable notice
- just and equitable
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.