Case 4107319/2018 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107319/2018 Held in Glasgow on August 2018 Employment Judge: F J Garvie Mr D Glen v Glencare Slaters Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4107319/2018
- Decision date
- 7 September 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107319/2018 Held in Glasgow on August 2018 Employment Judge: F J Garvie Mr D Glen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Glen worked for Glencare Slaters Ltd from 16 March 1998 until 1 December 2017. The respondent did not enter an appearance at the hearing. The tribunal found that he had been dismissed when the business closed and that he sought a redundancy payment, holiday pay and notice pay.
On the redundancy claim, the tribunal accepted Mr Glen's evidence that Mrs Wendy Orr had sent a written letter to the respondent around 4 December 2017 asking about redundancy and notice payments. That was sufficient to satisfy section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal then calculated the statutory redundancy payment using the GOV.UK calculator, taking account of his age, 18 full years' service and weekly gross pay of £559, and awarded £7,579.50.
The holiday pay and notice pay complaints were outside the three-month period that would ordinarily apply under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for Mr Glen to present those complaints in time because he was unaware of the time limits, had relied on Mrs Orr to take steps, and did not obtain advice until later. It further held that the later period for presentation was reasonable in the unusual circumstances of the case.
The tribunal therefore allowed both time-barred complaints to proceed and awarded £1,119.30 for outstanding holiday pay and £6,708 for notice pay. For notice, it applied the statutory maximum of 12 weeks because Mr Glen had more than 12 years' continuous employment. The bottom-line awards totalled £15,406.80.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal accepted that a written claim for redundancy pay had been sent to the respondent by Mrs Wendy Orr around 4 December 2017, so the claim was in time under section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996. The redundancy payment was calculated using the GOV.UK calculator on the basis of age 35, 18 full years' service, and weekly gross pay of £559. | Upheld | — | £7,580 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was out of the original three-month time limit, but the tribunal extended time because it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it earlier and the further period was reasonable in the circumstances. The award was for outstanding holiday entitlement on termination. | Upheld | — | £1,119 |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was treated as a breach of contract claim for statutory notice. The tribunal extended time on the same basis as the holiday pay complaint and awarded damages based on 12 weeks' notice at weekly pay of £559. | Upheld | — | £6,708 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,407
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Wall's Meat Co Limited v Khan 1979 ICR 52
- Porter v Bandridge Limited 1978 ICR 943 CA
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.