Case 4103551/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Tinnion Miss Amanda Feeney v Ms. Amanda Dallas t/a “La Grande Boutique” — 2022
- Case reference
- 4103551/2020
- Decision date
- 25 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. A.
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tinnion Miss Amanda Feeney
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal proceeded with the final hearing in the respondent's absence after noting that she had been on notice of the hearing, had emailed that she would be abroad from 15 December 2021 to 13 January 2022, and had not requested an adjournment. The claimant appeared in person. The judge recorded that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
On the wage limitation point, the tribunal found that the claimant had not received any payslips until after her dismissal on 8 June 2020. It was therefore not reasonably practicable for her to present the wage complaint covering 15 January to 4 February 2020 within the normal three-month period, and the complaint was presented within a further reasonable period.
The tribunal upheld two complaints of unlawful deduction from wages. It found that the period 15 January to 4 February 2020 involved an underpayment of £16.42 per week, leading to an award of £49.26, and that the period 4 March to 8 June 2020 involved an underpayment of £71.25 per week, leading to an award of £987.32.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant's breach of contract / wrongful summary dismissal complaint under article 6 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994 and awarded £241.16, being one week's notice pay. It further upheld the holiday pay complaint under ss.13(1)-23(1) ERA 1996 and/or r.14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, finding that the claimant had accrued 16 days' holiday, taken 7 days, and therefore had 9 days outstanding as at 8 June 2020, valued at £60.29 per day.
The total sum ordered was £1,820.35, made up of £49.26, £987.32, £241.16 and £542.61. No separate basic award, compensatory award, injury to feelings award or interest was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the wage complaint for 15 January to 4 February 2020 well-founded and awarded £49.26, calculated as 3 weeks' underpayment at £16.42 per week. | Upheld | — | £49 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the wage complaint for 4 March to 8 June 2020 well-founded and awarded £987.32, calculated as 13 6/7 weeks' underpayment at £71.25 per week. | Upheld | — | £987 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal described this as a breach of contract / wrongful (summary) dismissal complaint under article 6 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994 and awarded one week's notice pay. | Upheld | — | £241 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the holiday pay complaint well-founded under ss.13(1)-23(1) ERA 1996 and/or r.14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998 and awarded £542.61 for 9 days of outstanding holiday at £60.29 per day. | Upheld | — | £543 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,820
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 47
- ss.13(1)-23(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 6 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
- r.14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.