Case 4106681/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone) Mr T Callaghan v YWR Airdrie Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 4106681/2020
- Decision date
- 16 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
3 namedClaimant
(sitting alone) Mr T Callaghan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr T Callaghan and Mr E Hamilton were employed by a business trading as Your Waste Recycled and transferred to YWR Airdrie Ltd under TUPE on or about 14 February 2020. The tribunal found that the Respondent hand-delivered a letter on 26 March 2020 asking them to agree to furlough and a reduction in pay, and both Claimants signed the document and remained on furlough until their employment was ended with immediate effect on 21 July 2020 when Mr Stocks told them they were being made redundant.
The tribunal accepted that some furlough payments had been made, but found that the First Claimant had not been paid 11 weeks' wages and the Second Claimant had not been paid 9.4 weeks' wages for the period between 26 March and 21 July 2020. It rejected the Respondent's position that entitlement depended on successful and timeous receipt of Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme funds from HMRC, holding that the March letter did not make wages conditional on grant receipt and that clearer wording would have been needed to shift that risk to the Claimants. The unpaid wage claims were therefore upheld as unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 ERA 1996.
On termination, the tribunal found that neither Claimant was given the statutory minimum notice or paid in lieu, that neither received a statutory redundancy payment at the time, and that both had 11 days of accrued untaken holiday. It held that the Claimants had not agreed to waive statutory redundancy, notice or holiday rights, and that the redundancy payments fell to be calculated by disregarding the furlough reduction under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Coronavirus, Calculation of a Week's Pay) Regulations 2020 because the relevant date for redundancy purposes was the end of the notional notice period. The First Claimant was awarded £1,485 redundancy pay and £863.27 notice damages; the Second Claimant was awarded £1,980 redundancy pay and £1,193.27 notice damages. Holiday pay was awarded at £726 each, calculated at £66 per day.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First Claimant (Mr T Callaghan); unpaid furlough wages for 11 weeks between 26 March and 21 July 2020. | Upheld | — | £2,862 |
| Breach of contract | First Claimant; damages for failure to give the statutory minimum notice period under s.86(4) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £863 |
| Redundancy | First Claimant; statutory redundancy payment under s.135 ERA 1996, calculated on a week's pay of £330. | Upheld | — | £1,485 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First Claimant; accrued untaken holiday pay at termination, treated as an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £726 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second Claimant (Mr E Hamilton); unpaid furlough wages for 9.4 weeks between 26 March and 21 July 2020. | Upheld | — | £2,445 |
| Breach of contract | Second Claimant; damages for failure to give the statutory minimum notice period under s.86(4) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,193 |
| Redundancy | Second Claimant; statutory redundancy payment under s.135 ERA 1996, calculated on a week's pay of £330. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,281
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.86(4) ERA 1996
- s.135 ERA 1996
- s.145 ERA 1996
- s.162 ERA 1996
- Employment Rights Act 1996 (Coronavirus, Calculation of a Week's Pay) Regulations 2020
- Reg 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.203 ERA 1996
- Westwood v Secretary of State for Employment [1984] IRLR 209
- Secretary of State for Employment v Wilson [1977] IRLR 483
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.