Case 4105112/2016 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Nos: 4105112/2016, 4105113/2016 & 4105115/2016 Hearing at Edinburgh on March 20175 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Sarah-Jane Baxter v Not Present EIH Systems Ltd — 2017
- Case reference
- 4105112/2016
- Decision date
- 27 March 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo Macleod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Nos: 4105112/2016, 4105113/2016 & 4105115/2016 Hearing at Edinburgh on March 20175 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Sarah-Jane Baxter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe three claimants brought a joint ET1 saying that they had been unlawfully deprived of wages by the respondent and that they had been unfairly dismissed. The respondent did not present an ET3. Ms Baxter and Mr Young attended the hearing on 2 March 2017; Mr Henderson did not attend.
For Ms Baxter, the tribunal found that the written contract was unsatisfactory, that her pay was £1,272 per month net, and that there had been underpayment in May 2016 with no salary paid for June or July 2016. It also noted a £1,000 payment made on 12 December 2016 without explanation. The tribunal awarded £1,683.20 for arrears of pay after crediting that payment, £1,174.16 for four weeks' notice pay, and £606.47 for accrued but untaken annual leave, making a total of £3,463.83. The tribunal also recorded that Ms Baxter did not have the qualifying service needed for an unfair dismissal claim.
For Mr Young, the tribunal found that he had been paid £1,272 per month and that he was due a gross salary of £20,000 subject to deductions. It accepted the claim for unpaid wages, with a payment of £1,275 made on 12 December 2016 taken into account, and awarded £728 for unpaid wages, £1,174.16 for four weeks' notice pay, and £587.10 for accrued but untaken annual leave, making a total of £2,489.26.
Mr Henderson did not attend and did not respond to the tribunal's letter asking him to answer questions after the hearing. The tribunal said there was no basis on which it could make any award to him, that he had failed to pursue the claim, and that there was no evidence from him on which a decision could properly be made. His claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms Baxter; arrears of pay for May to July 2016. The tribunal found the salary figure was net, treated the monthly payments as net payments, and reduced the underpayment by the £1,000 paid on 12 December 2016. | Upheld | — | £1,683 |
| Breach of contract | Ms Baxter; four weeks' notice pay, calculated on weekly pay of £293.54. | Upheld | — | £1,174 |
| Holiday pay | Ms Baxter; accrued but untaken annual leave. The tribunal found she had 10.33 days remaining and valued this at £606.47. | Upheld | — | £606 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr Young; unpaid wages. The tribunal took account of the £1,275 payment made on 12 December 2016. | Upheld | — | £728 |
| Breach of contract | Mr Young; four weeks' notice pay, calculated on weekly pay of £293.54. | Upheld | — | £1,174 |
| Holiday pay | Mr Young; accrued but untaken annual leave. The tribunal found he had 10 days remaining and valued this at £587.10. | Upheld | — | £587 |
| Other | Mr Henderson did not attend the hearing, did not reply to the tribunal's post-hearing letter, and the tribunal said there was no basis upon which to make any award; his claim was dismissed. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,953
- 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.