Case 4107518/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W G Archibald v Oakshaw Trinity Church — 2020
- Case reference
- 4107518/2019
- Decision date
- 12 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W G Archibald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the outset of the final hearing in Glasgow on 11 September 2019, the Employment Judge raised whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear Mr Archibald's claim. The claimant said the respondent had increased his annual holiday entitlement from 20 days a year plus statutory holidays to 25 days a year plus statutory holidays, and that the respondent then sought to reduce that entitlement.
The tribunal explained that payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday can only be made on termination of employment under the Working Time Regulations, and that any breach of contract claim falls within the tribunal's extended jurisdiction only where the contract has come to an end. The claimant's son mentioned sums deducted from the claimant, but the ET1 did not include a claim for unlawful deductions from wages and that was accepted.
Neither party wished to make further submissions on jurisdiction. The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims before it between the parties, and the claim was dismissed. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and/or contract of employment dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the employment relationship was continuing; the tribunal also noted that no unlawful deductions from wages claim had been pleaded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Working Time Regulations 1998, regulation 13A
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994, regulation 3(c)
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.