Case 4106942/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jamie Bruce v Hyspec Scotland — 2019
- Case reference
- 4106942/2019
- Decision date
- 13 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jamie Bruce
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Jamie Bruce and Mr James Bruce were joiners who had worked intermittently for Hyspec Scotland since 2017, and that they began the relevant engagement on the David Livingston Centre contract on 12 November 2018. There was no written agreement defining the arrangement. The tribunal found that they were paid hourly rates, also received an allowance for travel time, submitted weekly hours, wore hi-visibility vests bearing the respondent’s name, and could not send substitutes to do their work. It also found that they worked the site hours required, were directed in general terms by the respondent and by the site manager, and were paid through the Construction Industry Scheme with tax deducted at 20%.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The tribunal held that the claimants were workers for the purposes of Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and entitled to be paid in lieu of accrued annual leave on termination. The judgment states that, if successful, each claimant was to receive £829.64 net, and ordered payment of that sum to each claimant. This entry records the award for Mr Jamie Bruce in case 4106942/2019; the reasons were given for both conjoined claims. | Upheld | — | £830 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £830
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Regulation 2 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 16 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Pimlico Plumbers v Smith
- Uber BV v Aslam
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.