Case 4102474/2018 · Employment Tribunal
L Doherty Mr Douglas Craeg v Avondale Coaches Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4102474/2018
- Decision date
- 14 May 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Doherty Mr Douglas Craeg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unauthorised deduction of wages and failure to pay holiday pay. On the wages complaints, the tribunal found there were two matters in issue: £398.46 said to be unpaid when the first period of employment ended on 29 May 2017, and a later series of eleven £20 deductions from wages between 22 June and 7 September 2017. The tribunal held both wages complaints were out of time under s.23 ERA 1996. It accepted that the claimant knew about Employment Tribunals, had realised he could complain about what had happened, and had contacted ACAS only in December 2017, after the relevant limitation periods had expired. It was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the complaints in time, so it did not have jurisdiction to determine the wages claims. The tribunal also recorded Mr Gold's evidence that, on the respondent's own calculations, £118.46 had been withheld in error and would be paid, but it said it had no power to order that payment.
The holiday pay complaint succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was due four days' accrued but untaken holiday pay at the end of his employment and that the claim was presented in time. It found that the claimant had worked four days per week and had net pay of £250 per week during the second period of employment. On that basis it awarded £250 for unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal noted that the respondent had accepted holiday pay was due and had assessed it on a gross basis at £277.20, but the judgment only ordered payment of £250 and said either party could apply to review the amount if required.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the complaint was out of time under s.23 ERA 1996 and refused to extend time under s.23(4) because it was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal accepted that four days' accrued holiday had not been paid on termination and awarded £250. It noted the respondent had assessed the holiday pay on a gross basis at £277.20 and said either party could apply to review the amount if required. | Upheld | — | £250 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £250
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.23 ERA 1996 three-month time limit
- s.23(3) ERA 1996 series of deductions rule
- s.23(4) ERA 1996 reasonably practicable test
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.