Case 4105853/2023 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105853/2023 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on January 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Amy Mitchell v Cera Care Operations (Scotland) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105853/2023
- Decision date
- 18 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105853/2023 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on January 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Amy Mitchell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAmy Mitchell brought claims about holiday pay, breach of contract and TUPE following a transfer of employment. At the start of the 8 January 2024 hearing she confirmed that the outstanding holiday pay had already been paid, so that claim no longer proceeded.
The tribunal found that her contract provided for a salary of £26,000 per year, with overtime at £11 per hour and separate on-call arrangements, although the contract did not define the flat rate for being on call. It accepted that she had worked under a changed pay cycle from monthly to weekly from November 2022 until August 2023, but held that any breach of contract on that point had been affirmed because she continued working for around 10 months without making a written complaint. On the on-call payment issue, the tribunal was not persuaded that she had proved any loss, noting that she accepted receipt of £799.24 from the respondent in relation to that matter.
On the TUPE issue, the tribunal recorded that the respondent accepted it was in breach of Regulation 4(4) of TUPE 2006 in relation to the change of pay cycle from monthly to weekly. The tribunal therefore made a declaration of breach only and awarded no compensation. The remaining claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | At the outset of the hearing the claimant confirmed that she had already received payment in respect of the outstanding holiday pay, and that claim no longer proceeded. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint covered the change from monthly to weekly pay and the on-call payment issue. The tribunal held that any breach in relation to pay cycle had been affirmed because the claimant continued working for about 10 months without a written complaint, and it was not persuaded that she had proved loss on the on-call issue after taking account of the £799.24 payment made to her. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal made a declaration that the respondent acted in breach of Regulation 4(4) of TUPE 2006. No compensation was awarded. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- affirmation of breach of contract
- Regulation 4(4) TUPE 2006
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.