Case 4104264/2020 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no 4104264/2020 (P) Held at Edinburgh on and January 2021 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mrs J Rosiczka v Represented by: Ms A Kozlowska - friend Interpreter – Ms M Karwacka Mrs A Tadysz t/a Cappadocia — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104264/2020
- Decision date
- 21 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sandy Meiklejohn
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no 4104264/2020 (P) Held at Edinburgh on and January 2021 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mrs J Rosiczka
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs J Rosiczka, was employed by the respondent's café/bistro business as a kitchen assistant from 1 August 2017. The respondent closed the business on 21 March 2020 because of coronavirus regulations. The tribunal found that the claimant was told on or around that date that she would be paid only if the respondent's CJRS application was successful, and that she would be taken back if the business reopened. When the claimant later said her circumstances had changed and she was unsure whether she could return, the respondent dismissed her by text message on 23 May 2020.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the respondent's need to know whether the claimant would return was a substantial reason for dismissal, but held that the dismissal was unfair because the procedure was defective. The claimant was not warned that her employment was at risk, the respondent did not enquire into her changed circumstances, she was not allowed to make representations, and no appeal was offered. Applying Polkey, the tribunal concluded that dismissal would have been inevitable if the claimant could not return to work, so it made a basic award of £250.56 but no compensatory award.
The holiday pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant's statutory entitlement was 5.6 weeks under the Working Time Regulations 1998, but she had been paid only 2 weeks' holiday in each of her two complete years of service. It awarded 7.2 weeks' holiday pay, totalling £902.02.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed. The tribunal held that the claimant's contract continued during the closure, but that the parties had mutually agreed that there would be no work and no pay unless the respondent's CJRS application succeeded. On that basis no wages were properly payable between 21 March 2020 and 23 May 2020. Because the claimant succeeded in part and had not been given written particulars of employment, the tribunal also made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 in the lower amount of two weeks' pay, £250.56.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because, although the respondent had a substantial reason for dismissal when the claimant did not confirm whether she could return to work, the procedure was unfair: the claimant was not told her job was at risk if she did not respond within two days, no enquiry was made into her changed circumstances, she was not allowed to make representations, and no appeal was offered. The tribunal awarded a basic award only and made no compensatory award because dismissal would have been inevitable if the claimant could not return to work. | Upheld | — | £251 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to the statutory minimum holiday entitlement of 5.6 weeks under the Working Time Regulations 1998. She had only been paid for 2 weeks' holiday in each of her two complete years of service, so the tribunal awarded 7.2 weeks' holiday pay, calculated at £902.02. | Upheld | — | £902 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim related to furlough pay between 21 March 2020 and 23 May 2020. The tribunal found that the employment contracts continued during the closure, but were varied by mutual agreement so that there would be no work and no pay unless the respondent's CJRS application was successful. On that basis no wages were 'properly payable' and the claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the claimant had succeeded in part and the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars. It awarded the lower amount of two weeks' pay, not the higher amount, because of the respondent's limited resources and lack of fluency in English, but it did not treat those matters as exceptional circumstances. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,403
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £251
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(1) and (4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Regulations 13-17 WTR 1998
- s.119 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.