Case 4102371/2017 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102371/2017 Held in Glasgow on October 2017 Employment Judge: lain F. Atack v Mrs L Crolla KMT Cleaning Services Ltd. — 2017
- Case reference
- 4102371/2017
- Decision date
- 8 November 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Iain Atack
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102371/2017 Held in Glasgow on October 2017 Employment Judge: lain F. Atack
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs L Crolla began work for KMT Cleaning on 10 October 2016 and continued for KMT Cleaning Services Ltd after the business was taken over. The tribunal found that KMT Cleaning Services Ltd ceased trading on 14 July 2017, that KMT Prestige Ltd was a separate legal entity, and that the claimant's employment ended on 12 July 2017 without notice. The claimant was absent from work because of ill-health from 22 May 2017 until termination.
The claim for accrued but untaken annual leave failed. The tribunal held that leave from the 2016 holiday year could not be carried over because the claimant had not taken holidays or been unable to do so through long-term absence, and that in 2017 she had already taken 48 hours of holiday, so her annual leave entitlement was exhausted.
The tribunal upheld the notice pay claim and both unlawful deduction claims. It held that the claimant was entitled to one week's notice under section 86(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that because she was ill during the notice period her right to payment was protected by section 88(1)(b). She should have received £128 for notice but had been paid £89.35, leaving £30.65 due. It also found an unpaid week of 'lying time' worth £128 and a statutory sick pay shortfall: £250.18 had been paid, but £625.45 was due for the seven-week period to 12 July 2017, leaving £375.27 outstanding. The orders therefore total £533.92.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken annual paid leave failed. The tribunal held that 2016 leave could not be carried over because the claimant had not asked for holidays or been unable to take them through long-term absence, and that her 2017 holiday entitlement had been exhausted by 48 hours taken. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached the contract by failing to make payment in lieu of notice. The claimant was entitled to one week's notice pay of £128, but only £89.35 had been paid, leaving £30.65 due. | Upheld | — | £31 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted that one week's 'lying time' had not been paid. It found that one week had already been covered by the payment on the 2 June 2017 payslip, but a further week remained unpaid, worth £128 at £8 per hour. | Upheld | — | £128 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that statutory sick pay had been underpaid and treated the shortfall as an unlawful deduction from wages. It found SSP due of £625.45 for the sickness period to 12 July 2017, against £250.18 paid, leaving £375.27 outstanding. | Upheld | — | £375 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £534
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 86(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 88(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.