Case 4106578/2024 · Employment Tribunal
: J S Anderson J Haria Miss I Leckie v Shakebar Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 4106578/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Sorrell Members
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- J S Anderson, J Haria
Parties
2 namedClaimant
: J S Anderson J Haria Miss I Leckie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants originally presented combined claims including sex discrimination, equal pay and national minimum wage, but by agreement at the case management preliminary hearing on 23 October 2024 only the minimum wage complaint proceeded. The respondent argued that the claimants were contractors, not workers. The tribunal instead found that they had entered into and worked under a verbal contract for the Glastonbury Festival from 26 to 30 June 2024, based on the information passed through Anna, and that they performed the work personally for the respondent.
In deciding worker status, the tribunal relied on the respondent asking Anna to find people for the festival work, the claimants being told they would work around 35 hours for £500 plus a festival entry ticket, and the tribunal's acceptance of the claimants' evidence that they were students and not working or seeking work elsewhere. It found that the respondent was not their client or customer and noted the degree of control exercised on site: the claimants were assigned to one van, trained by Jake, supervised throughout the five-day period, and required to work the agreed festival dates and start time. The tribunal cited the statutory worker definitions in section 230(3) ERA 1996 and section 54(3) NMWA 1998, together with Uber BV and ors v Aslam and ors.
On hours worked, the tribunal accepted that no hours were recorded by the respondent and rejected the respondent's evidence that it felt the claimants had only worked 35 hours. It found, on the basis of the claimants' consistent evidence, that each claimant worked 45 hours in total, taking account of a late start on one day and short breaks during quieter periods. It also accepted that Jake told them on the third day that they could stop working and not receive any payment, and that the amount paid would depend on how hard Mr Ertekin thought they had worked, but found that this basis of payment had not been properly communicated to the claimants.
The tribunal upheld the minimum wage claim and calculated the awards by reference to 45 hours at £11.44 per hour. The first claimant was awarded £314.80 gross after deduction of £200 already paid, and the second claimant was awarded £264.80 gross after deduction of £250 already paid. The order allowed deduction of income tax and employee national insurance contributions if required by law, with payment of the balance to satisfy the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant's minimum wage claim. The tribunal found she was a worker and awarded 45 hours at £11.44 per hour (£514.80) less £200 already paid, producing a gross award of £314.80. | Upheld | — | £315 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant's minimum wage claim. The tribunal found she was a worker and awarded 45 hours at £11.44 per hour (£514.80) less £250 already paid, producing a gross award of £264.80. | Upheld | — | £265 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £580
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- s.54(3) NMWA 1998
- Uber BV and ors v Aslam and ors [2021] ICR 657
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.