Case 4102618/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Klapil v Pegasus Express Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102618/2022
- Decision date
- 14 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Klapil
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for Pegasus Express Limited as an HGV driver from 4 May 2021 until his resignation on 29 January 2022. On his start date he signed a starter form stating that his basic hours were 50 per week and that both his basic rate and overtime rate were £12 per hour. The contract and appointment letter contained an annual salary figure of £28,600, but the tribunal found that this was an error based on an hourly rate of £11 rather than the agreed £12 rate. The tribunal found that the claimant was in fact paid a gross annual salary of £31,300, with a minimum monthly payment of £2,600, and that overtime was paid at the same hourly rate. The contract also provided for an unpaid 45-minute daily break, 28 days' annual leave, and statutory sick pay only.
The claimant argued that he should have received a higher overtime rate, that the 45-minute break should not have been deducted, and that he had not been paid all hours worked. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence from its finance director, together with the documentary record, including the starter form, contract, payslips and tachograph records. It found that the claimant's time was recorded through time sheets agreed with his line manager, that he was paid for at least 50 hours each week even when he worked fewer hours, and that he was paid overtime for additional hours at £12 per hour. It also found that the claimant had agreed to that arrangement and that there was no agreement to a £13.50 hourly rate. On that basis, the tribunal rejected the arrears of pay and breach of contract complaints.
The sick pay complaint also failed. In August 2021 the claimant was absent for 15 days with a broken finger, of which the first three were waiting days, and he was paid statutory sick pay for the remaining 12 days, totalling £231.24. In January 2022 he was absent after a positive covid test; the tribunal found that he was paid statutory sick pay for the whole absence, including £57.81 SSP for three days and £77.08 supplementary sick pay for four days. No further sick pay was due.
The holiday pay complaint also failed. The tribunal found that the holiday year ran from January to December, that the claimant was told he had 19 days' leave from 4 May to 31 December 2021, and that he took seven days' holiday in August, five public holidays, and additional leave over Christmas and New Year. Although the contract said leave could not be carried forward, the tribunal found that some carry-over was in fact permitted and that the claimant had taken or been paid all leave due. On termination he was paid £403.75 holiday pay, which the tribunal treated as covering the accrued balance. The judgment therefore dismissed the claims for arrears of pay, unpaid sick pay and unpaid holiday pay, and found no valid basis for any additional compensation based on the claimant's complaints about treatment at work.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Covered the claimant's asserted arrears of pay/overtime and unpaid sick pay. The tribunal found he had agreed a basic and overtime rate of £12 per hour, was paid a guaranteed salary for 50 hours each week, was paid overtime at the agreed rate, and received the correct statutory sick pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had taken or been paid all annual leave due to him, including holiday taken during 2021 and a termination payment of £403.75 for accrued leave. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal said there was no agreement to increase the hourly rate and no evidence to support any breach of contract claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regs 13, 13A and 14
- SSP (Coronavirus) (Suspension of Waiting Days and General Amendment) Regulations 2020
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.