Case 4104603/2017 · Employment Tribunal
C Lucas (Sitting alone) Miss Linzi Cannon v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 4104603/2017
- Decision date
- 9 February 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
1 namedClaimant
C Lucas (Sitting alone) Miss Linzi Cannon
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Linzi Cannon was employed by Mr James Alexander Smith, trading as Stuart Gallone & Son, from 23 October 2015 to 30 June 2017. She gave written notice on 28 June 2017 stating that she was leaving on 30 June 2017, and the tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 30 June 2017. It rejected the ET1 date of 14 July 2017 and found that the holiday year ran from 1 January to 31 December, with a statutory entitlement of 28 days' paid holiday for a five-day worker.
On that basis the tribunal found that, by 30 June 2017, the claimant had taken 8 days' paid holiday in the 2017 holiday year and still had 6 days accrued but untaken. Using her annual salary of £16,000, it calculated the gross sum due in lieu of that holiday as £369.23. The respondent had deliberately not paid that sum, saying he was dissatisfied with the short notice given, but the tribunal held that this did not justify the deduction and found a breach of s.13 ERA 1996, with entitlement to payment in lieu under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had never provided the claimant with a written statement of particulars of employment, and had refused to do so when asked. It treated that as a breach of s.1 ERA 1996 and, applying s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, awarded the higher amount of 4 weeks' pay, assessed at £1,230.77. The claimant's notice pay claim was withdrawn at the hearing, and the reference to discrimination in the ET1 was found to have been included in error and was dismissed. The total award was £1,600.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 | Holiday pay due on termination was treated as an unauthorised deduction from wages under s.13 ERA 1996, with entitlement to payment in lieu of accrued but untaken leave under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found 6 days remained outstanding at 30 June 2017. | Upheld | — | £369 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to provide written particulars of employment in breach of s.1 ERA 1996 and, under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, awarded 4 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,231 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant withdrew the notice pay claim at the final hearing; the judgment records that this part of the claim was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The ET1 reference to discrimination was said by the claimant to have been included in error and no discrimination claim was pursued; the tribunal dismissed that reference for the avoidance of doubt. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,600
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,600
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- s.86(2) ERA 1996
- regulation 14(2) and (3) Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.1 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.