Case 4106237/2022 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106237/2022 Held at Dundee on January 2023 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Miss Lucy Vickers v ’s Mother Altea Restaurants Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4106237/2022
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Meiklejohn Date
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106237/2022 Held at Dundee on January 2023 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Miss Lucy Vickers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent as a Part Time Crew member from 12 July 2021 until she resigned on 23 September 2022. She complained that she had not been paid all holiday due on termination and that the respondent had failed to provide compliant written particulars of employment. The tribunal found that she had received a Particulars of Employment document dated 9 July 2021, had access to the Employee Handbook, and knew about MyStuff and the holiday donut.
On the holiday pay issue, the tribunal accepted the respondent's revised calculation. It found that the claimant's first holiday year ran from her start date to 11 July 2022, that she accrued 18.42 days in that period, and that she used 12 days, leaving 6.44 days potentially available to carry over. The respondent allowed five days to carry over into the second leave year. On the revised figures, the claimant had no accrued but untaken holiday on termination, so no holiday pay remained due.
The tribunal held that the employment documentation, read with the Handbook and the Guide, was enough to form part of the contract under section 7A ERA 1996, although it did not by itself allow the holiday entitlement to be precisely calculated as section 1(4)(d)(i) ERA 1996 requires. It noted the default position under the Working Time Regulations and said the case was not one where leave had been refused, distinguishing King v Sash Window Workshop Ltd. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's complaint about holiday entitlement had been raised as a grievance, but that point had no practical consequence because no compensation was awarded. Both complaints were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay on termination. The ET1 pleaded breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages, which the tribunal treated as the same claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint that the respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment. The claimant appeared to seek an award linked to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.7A ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- reg. 13 WTR 1998
- reg. 13A WTR 1998
- King v Sash Window Workshop Ltd [2018] ICR 693
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.