Case 4106857/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Fairley v Renfrew Transport Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106857/2023
- Decision date
- 23 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Claire McManus
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Fairley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal treated the live claim as a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Although the claim had originally proceeded amid uncertainty over the correct respondent and whether the claimant was an employee, by the final hearing Renfrew Transport Services Ltd accepted that the claimant was its employee.
The claimant's underlying position was that he should have been offered 40 hours' work per week and that the respondent had failed to do so. The tribunal explained that, while that was framed by the claimant as a contractual entitlement and later as a claim for guaranteed payments, the Employment Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine a breach of contract claim while the contract of employment is continuing. The claimant also ultimately confirmed that he was not seeking sums for unpaid holiday pay or unpaid wages.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the section 13 wages claim was not well founded and dismissed it. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal dismissed the section 13 ERA 1996 wages claim. The claimant's arguments about guaranteed payments and a contractual entitlement to 40 hours were noted, but the tribunal explained it had no jurisdiction over an ongoing-contract breach of contract claim and no separate breach of contract outcome was recorded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.13(3) ERA 1996
- s.27(1)(a) ERA 1996
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.