Case 4103799/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Boyce v Represented by:- Mr E Cameron – Solicitor Alexa Geddes — 2019
- Case reference
- 4103799/2018
- Decision date
- 24 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Boyce
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reconsideration by way of written submissions, triggered by the respondents' application of 28 February 2019. The only issue reconsidered was the calculation of holiday pay and the sum awarded for it; no other part of the 25 February 2019 judgment was challenged, and the claimant agreed the revised calculation by email on 23 March 2019.
The tribunal accepted the respondents' revised calculation. It found that the claimant was entitled to 21 days' annual leave, had accrued 8.5 days by the date of termination in 2017, and had already been paid for 2 of those days. That left 6.5 days of accrued but untaken and unpaid leave.
Using a daily rate of £34.26, the tribunal held that the holiday pay due was £222.69. Because the respondents had not complied with the ACAS Code of Practice, the sum was uplifted by 25% to £278.36. The earlier award figures of £753.72 and £942.15 were replaced accordingly, and the remainder of the original judgment was confirmed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Reconsideration varied only the holiday pay calculation. The earlier figures of £753.72 and £942.15 were replaced by £222.69 and £278.36. | Upheld | — | £278 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £278
- across all upheld claims
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.