Case 4102971/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Bayne & others as per attached schedule v OCS Integrated Solutions Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4102971/2023
- Decision date
- 8 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mary Kearns
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Bayne & others as per attached schedule
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were employed at the NewsPrinters site in Eurocentral on a 4-on, 4-off shift pattern. Their basic pay was fixed monthly, overtime was voluntary and paid separately, and annual leave was taken in blocks. The claim was presented on 16 May 2023 and was confined at the hearing to holiday pay; after the respondent clarified its position on Regulation 13A WTR, the claimants accepted that they had received their statutory entitlement to annual leave and that part of the case was dismissed.
The remaining issue was whether voluntary overtime had to be included when calculating Regulation 13 holiday pay under Regulation 16 WTR. The tribunal applied the line of authority discussed in Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willetts, East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers, and Hein v Albert Holzkamm GmbH, focussing on whether the overtime was sufficiently regular and settled over a sufficient period to amount to normal remuneration. The tribunal also noted section 23(4A) ERA 1996, so only holiday pay paid from 17 May 2021 onwards was within scope.
On that test, the tribunal held that Mr R Bayne, Mr D Galt, Mr W White, Mr D Barker, Mr M Hossack, Mr J McPherson, Mr Bola Adams and Mr Thomas Reid had worked overtime with sufficient regularity for it to form part of normal remuneration for the periods identified in the judgment, running from 17 May 2021, 1 November 2021, 1 November 2022, 1 December 2022, 1 February 2023 or 1 September 2022 as applicable through to 31 December 2023. Their claims under section 23 ERA 1996 therefore succeeded.
The tribunal dismissed the claims of Ms F Ryan, Mr A McGregor, Mr C McCaulay and Mr S Burton because their overtime was not sufficiently regular or recurring. It also dismissed Mr J Ramsay and Mr R Burton, finding that their patterns remained sporadic or had not continued over a sufficient period to qualify as normal remuneration. No monetary award was fixed in the liability judgment, and the tribunal directed that listing stencils be sent out for a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The Regulation 13/13A WTR annual leave point was conceded after the respondent explained the shift pattern and entitlement calculation. The tribunal dismissed this part of the claims because the claimants accepted they had received their statutory annual leave entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The section 23 ERA / Regulation 16 WTR holiday pay claims succeeded for Mr R Bayne, Mr D Galt, Mr W White, Mr D Barker, Mr M Hossack, Mr J McPherson, Mr Bola Adams and Mr Thomas Reid for the periods stated in the judgment. No remedy was quantified at this stage; the tribunal sent out listing stencils for a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claims failed for Ms F Ryan, Mr A McGregor, Mr C McCaulay, Mr S Burton, Mr J Ramsay and Mr R Burton. The tribunal held that their voluntary overtime was not sufficiently regular and settled, or had not been worked over a sufficient period, to count as normal remuneration for holiday pay purposes. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- normal remuneration
- sufficiently regular and settled
- sufficient period of time
- exceptional and unforeseeable overtime
- broadly regular and predictable overtime
- s.23(4A) ERA 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.