Case 4105274/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no 4105274/2020 (V) & others Held remotely on January 2021 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Miss L Mulholland v Maxwell Bruce Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4105274/2020
- Decision date
- 23 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no 4105274/2020 (V) & others Held remotely on January 2021 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Miss L Mulholland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were employed by Maxwell Bruce Ltd until redundancy on 31 July 2020. Their contracts provided 25 days' annual leave plus 9 statutory holidays. They were furloughed from 1 April 2020. On 9 June 2020 Mr Donaldson emailed staff saying accrued holiday would be paid up to 30 June on the 27 June pay run, with furlough pay and holiday pay shown separately. The tribunal found that email did not amount to a valid notice under regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 because it did not specify the days on which leave was to be taken and did not give the required advance notice.
Because the email was ineffective, the tribunal held that no days between 9 June 2020 and termination on 31 July 2020 were annual leave for any claimant. The reduction in June furlough pay was therefore an unlawful deduction from wages within section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal calculated the gross shortfalls as £1,539.95 for the first claimant, £1,233.59 for the second claimant, and £815.27 for the third claimant, and ordered those sums to be paid gross subject to deductions for tax and employee National Insurance.
The tribunal also held that each claimant was entitled to additional holiday pay on termination under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It accepted that the contractual holiday terms were more favourable than the statutory position under regulation 17. On that basis it calculated accrued holiday pay balances of £744.69 for the first claimant, £157.87 for the second claimant, and £255.76 for the third claimant, taking account of the holiday already paid in June 2020 and, for the first claimant, the January leave carried over from 2019.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Aggregate gross award across the three claimants: first claimant £1,539.95, second claimant £1,233.59, third claimant £815.27. | Upheld | — | £3,589 |
| Holiday pay | Aggregate gross award across the three claimants for additional holiday pay on termination: first claimant £744.69, second claimant £157.87, third claimant £255.76. | Upheld | — | £1,158 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,747
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 13(3) ERA 1996
- Regulation 14 WTR
- Regulation 15 WTR
- Regulation 17 WTR
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.