Case 4106954/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone) Mr P Johnston v Muehlhan Industrial Services Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4106954/2020
- Decision date
- 19 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone) Mr P Johnston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Johnston had been employed by Muehlhan Industrial Services Ltd since 2007 as a Scaffold Supervisor under a contract providing for 39 hours per week. The tribunal found that he had normal working hours for the purposes of section 234(1) ERA 1996, but that his remuneration during those normal hours did not vary with the amount of work done. Applying regulation 4(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Coronavirus, Calculation of a Week’s Pay) Regulations 2020, and disregarding furlough-related reduction, the tribunal held that a week’s pay for the notice period was £791.98. As he was actually paid £744.65 per week during the notice period from 27 August to 19 November 2020, he was underpaid by £567.96 gross.
On annual leave, the tribunal preferred the claimant’s evidence that he took 12.5 days in the relevant leave year and rejected the respondent’s case that he had taken a further 6 days between 28 August and 4 September 2020. It found that his pro-rated entitlement on termination was 26.5 days, leaving 14 days accrued untaken holiday. He had been paid in lieu of only 8 days at the agreed rate of £152.08 per day, so he was entitled to a further £912.48 gross. The tribunal also noted there was no evidence that the respondent had properly notified him that he was required to take those 6 days as annual leave under regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The final deduction of £953.24 from the claimant’s November 2020 wages was also held unlawful. The respondent said it represented recovery of an overpayment caused by an allegedly incorrect hourly rate of £16.67 rather than £16.16 between August 2019 and March 2020. The tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that he had been notified in writing in June 2019 of the £16.67 rate, found that he was entitled to rely on that as a contractual term, and held that the respondent had not proved any overpayment for the purposes of section 14(1) ERA 1996. The deduction was therefore contrary to section 13 ERA 1996.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underpaid wages during the statutory notice period from 27 August to 19 November 2020. The tribunal found the correct week’s pay was £791.98 and that the claimant was underpaid by £47.33 per week gross over 12 weeks. | Upheld | — | £568 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued untaken annual leave on termination. The operative order and reasons at paragraph 60 state £912.48; paragraph 69 contains a minor arithmetical inconsistency (£912.36), but the ordered sum is £912.48. | Upheld | — | £912 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Deduction from the November 2020 final wage. The tribunal found no overpayment had been proved and held the deduction unlawful under section 13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £953 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,434
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.86(4) ERA 1996
- s.88(1) ERA 1996
- s.234(1) ERA 1996
- s.221(2) ERA 1996
- Reg 4(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 (Coronavirus, Calculation of a Week's Pay) Regulations 2020
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.14(1) ERA 1996
- Reg 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Reg 15 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.