Mr G Crawley v Represented by:10 Ms J Stewart - Wife Unison — 2024

Mr Crawley was an area organiser with over 20 years' service. He claimed payment in lieu of annual leave said to have accrued while he was suspended from 23 July 2020 until his resignation in August 2023, and payment in lieu of additional hours worked in the early stages of the pandemic. At the outset of the hearing, the tribunal clarified that the additional-hours issue was being pursued as a contractual claim. It found no identified contractual term, no documentary evidence, and no binding agreement with his manager that accrued time off in lieu would be paid after the pandemic, and that claim was dismissed.

On the holiday pay issue, the tribunal found that the claimant took annual leave in each leave year during suspension and that he informed the respondent of the dates he wished to take. His contract provided for 154 hours' annual leave per year plus pro rata bank holidays, and allowed carry-forward of up to five days only, with any further carry-forward requiring the Assistant General Secretary's agreement. The tribunal found that no such agreement was sought and there was no evidence that the claimant had been prevented from taking leave or had raised a problem at the time.

The tribunal considered the holiday pay claim both under the Working Time Regulations and as a continuing unlawful deduction from wages. It also rejected the contractual basis advanced for accrued but untaken holiday pay. Relying on Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Stringer and Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd, it held that there was no breach of Regulations 13, 16 or 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, no unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and no contractual entitlement to carry forward or be paid for additional untaken leave for 2020, 2021 or 2022. All claims were dismissed.