Case 4101556/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v SBC Empire Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101556/2022
- Decision date
- 21 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Neilson Michael
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had not accrued two years' continuous service. Before evidence, the tribunal raised a possible sexual orientation discrimination amendment discussed in correspondence, but the claimant did not apply to amend the ET1, so that issue was not pursued. The case therefore proceeded only on the pleaded claims in the ET1.
The tribunal found that the claimant worked as a chef at Oscars Bar and Kitchen in Shawlands from 6 September 2021 until dismissal without notice on 24 December 2021. He was paid a salary of £33,800 per annum, equivalent to a weekly salary of £650 and about £13.54 per hour. The tribunal found that he repeatedly asked for written terms and conditions, that no written statement was ever issued, that he took no holiday during employment, and that the respondent agreed he would be paid overtime and could offset hours below 48 in some weeks against hours above 48.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded £650 gross for notice pay, £1,345.54 for accrued holiday pay, £1,851.60 for unpaid overtime as an unlawful deduction from wages, and £2,176 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars. In calculating holiday pay, it applied the Working Time Regulations 1998 and included regular overtime in the normal week's pay, referring to Bear Scotland v Fulton and East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers. The tribunal accepted the claimant's time records and found 136.75 overtime hours in the recorded period. The total award was £6,023.14.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the requisite two years' continuous service. A proposed sexual orientation discrimination amendment was raised in correspondence before evidence, but the claimant chose not to apply to amend the ET1. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as one week's gross pay for the notice period, less appropriate tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £650 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded for accrued holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal included regular overtime in the normal week's pay when calculating the holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,346 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded for unpaid overtime as an unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal accepted the claimant's time records and found 136.75 overtime hours at an agreed rate of £13.54, with time off in lieu set off against hours below 48 in some weeks. | Upheld | — | £1,852 |
| Other | Awarded under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of particulars. The tribunal awarded the higher amount, based on repeated requests for a statement and its view that the failure to issue one was deliberate. | Upheld | — | £2,176 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,023
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.86 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
- Regulation 14(2) and 14(3) WTR 1998
- Bear Scotland v Fulton
- East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers
- s.23 and s.24 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.