Case 4104245/2017 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4104245/2017 and Employer Contract Claim 4105055/2017 Heard at Edinburgh on and October 2019 at am Employment Judge J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS Mr D Hendrie v Appears in person QA Vehicle Solutions Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4104245/2017
- Decision date
- 4 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge JG
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4104245/2017 and Employer Contract Claim 4105055/2017 Heard at Edinburgh on and October 2019 at am Employment Judge J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS Mr D Hendrie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFrom 5 July to 31 December 2016 the tribunal found the claimant worked at the respondent's Broxburn site under a contract for the supply of services as an independent contractor, not as an employee. The finding rested on the flat monthly retainer, the absence of agreed hourly or overtime rates, the lack of timesheets or payroll treatment, the claimant's own tools, and his ability to work away from the respondent's workflow and take time away from the site. His overtime/unauthorised deduction claim for that period was dismissed, and the tribunal said it would have failed in any event because the claimant did not prove the hours worked or the applicable overtime rate.
From 1 January 2017 the tribunal found the claimant was a full-time employee on £16 per hour gross for a 40-hour week with overtime at time and a half. He gave notice in late May 2017, worked 1 and 2 June 2017, and on 2 June Mr Quigley told him he "could just go now". The tribunal held that this ended the employment by mutual agreement on 2 June 2017 rather than in breach of contract by the claimant. In relation to holiday pay, the tribunal found that 11.8 days had accrued in the part-year, that 5 days had been taken, and that 1.8 days had already been paid during the hearing, leaving 5 days outstanding.
The claimant was awarded £512.15 for 5 days of accrued but untaken holiday pay at £102.43 net per day. On the counterclaim, the tribunal allowed £909.60 for the two satajet spray guns removed without consent and found no gift had been proved, but dismissed the £11.05 Kwik Fit invoice claim and the £360 labour charge claim. Applying compensatio, the tribunal set off the claimant's award against the respondent's counterclaim and entered judgment for the respondent in the net sum of £397.45.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for overtime/unauthorised deduction from wages for 5 July to 31 December 2016 dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant was an independent contractor in that period and, in any event, he had not proved any agreed hourly or overtime rate or the hours allegedly worked. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Succeeded for 5 days only. The tribunal found 11.8 days had accrued from 1 January 2017 to 2 June 2017, 5 days had been taken, and 1.8 days had already been paid during the hearing, leaving 5 days outstanding at £102.43 net per day. | Upheld | — | £512 |
| Breach of contract | Counterclaim succeeded for the cost of two satajet spray guns removed from the respondent's premises without consent. The tribunal rejected the contention that the guns had been gifted to the claimant and measured damages at the purchase price. | Upheld | — | £910 |
| Breach of contract | Counterclaim for £11.05, said to be Kwik Fit work to the claimant's vehicle, was dismissed because the invoice alone did not prove the claimant instructed or received the work. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Counterclaim for £360 labour charges was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant's employment ended on 2 June 2017 by mutual agreement, so his leaving did not amount to a breach of contract. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £397
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- balance of probabilities
- objective construction
- doctrine of compensatio
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.