Case 4106830/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrzej Seremak v All Renewable Energy Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4106830/2019
- Decision date
- 14 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I. Atack
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrzej Seremak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Seremak worked for All Renewable Energy Ltd from 24 August 2018 until 25 January 2019 as a worker on the renovation of a house owned by Mr Jakubczyk. He was paid hourly at £10.50 and by monthly bank transfer. There was no written contract or payslips. The tribunal found that on 21 January 2019 there was a conversation in which the claimant was told his job would end on Friday 25 January 2019. The claimant had 28 days' holiday in a full year and took no holidays during the employment.
The notice pay claim was dismissed. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that he had not been given proper notice and accepted the respondent's account of the January conversation as more likely. The unlawful deduction from wages claim was also dismissed because the claimant did not produce independent evidence of the hours worked or of any shortfall in pay, the respondent's underlying diaries had been destroyed, and the tribunal was not satisfied that the total paid on any occasion was less than the wages properly payable.
The holiday pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found that any suggestion of rolled-up holiday pay had not been made transparent or comprehensible: there was no contract, no payslips, and no written record showing that holiday pay was included in monthly payments. Referring to MPB Structures Ltd v Munro, Robinson-Steele v RD Retail Services Ltd and Lyddon v Englefield Brickwork Ltd, the tribunal held that holiday pay had not been paid on the face of it, or alternatively that any such arrangement would be void. Applying Regulation 14(3)(b) and Regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and section 222 ERA 1996, the tribunal used a broad-brush calculation and awarded £841.04 for 11.66 days' accrued but untaken holiday.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim dismissed; the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant had been told on 21 January 2019 that his job would end on 25 January 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim dismissed because the claimant did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that wages actually paid were less than wages properly payable; there was no independent corroboration of hours worked. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Award made for accrued but untaken annual leave under Regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Reasons section contains some inconsistent intermediate payment figures for October and January, but the tribunal's final calculation and award are explicit. | Upheld | — | £841 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £841
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 13(1) ERA 1996
- section 13(3) ERA 1996
- Regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 14(3)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 222 ERA 1996
- MPB Structures Ltd v Munro
- Robinson-Steele v RD Retail Services Ltd
- Lyddon v Englefield Brickwork Ltd
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.