Case 4107889/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Lauren Faircloth v DW Construction & Joinery Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107889/2020
- Decision date
- 30 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B. Beyzade
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Lauren Faircloth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought statutory complaints under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for unpaid wages and holiday pay. The case was heard by CVP on 2 March 2021 before Employment Judge B. Beyzade. The tribunal accepted that the ET1s were statutory wage claims, so it did not investigate the respondent's proposed contractual counterclaim. In determining the holiday claims, it applied section 27(1) ERA 1996 and regulations 13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Miss Lauren Faircloth was employed from 13 January 2020 to 30 October 2020 as an Admin/AutoCAD Operator at £10.50 per hour on an agreed 30-hour week. The tribunal found there was no written contract and no reliable annual leave record, and it rejected the respondent's reliance on CIJC holiday rules because no evidence showed they formed part of the employment terms. On the balance of probabilities, she had 21.6 hours of accrued leave unpaid, so £226.80 gross was due for holiday pay; her 6 November 2020 payslip also wrongly deducted £131.25 from wages that should have been paid in full for the last week worked.
Mr Jack Sutton was employed from 1 January 2020 to 30 October 2020 as a Bench Joiner at £14.00 per hour on a 42.5-hour week. The tribunal again found no written terms or leave records, and it preferred the respondent's evidence that he did not work on 1 and 2 January 2020. It nevertheless found that 14.7 hours of accrued leave remained unpaid, so £205.80 gross was due for holiday pay; his 6 November 2020 payslip also contained an unauthorised £336.00 deduction from wages that should have been £595.00.
The tribunal upheld all four complaints. It recorded total unlawful deductions of £358.05 for Miss Faircloth and £541.80 for Mr Sutton, making £899.85 gross overall, subject to statutory deductions including tax and national insurance.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant's unpaid wages claim for the week ending 30 October 2020. The tribunal found the 6 November 2020 payslip should have shown £315.00 due and that the £131.25 deduction for "Holiday Hrs" was not authorised. | Upheld | — | £131 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant's holiday pay claim for the period 13 January 2020 to 30 October 2020. The tribunal found 21.6 hours of accrued leave remained untaken and unpaid; the claimant had argued 21.75 hours. | Upheld | — | £227 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant's unpaid wages claim for the week ending 30 October 2020. The tribunal found the 6 November 2020 payslip should have shown £595.00 due and that the £336.00 deduction for "Holiday Hrs" was not authorised. | Upheld | — | £336 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant's holiday pay claim for the period 1 January 2020 to 30 October 2020. The tribunal found 14.7 hours of accrued leave remained untaken and unpaid; the reasons section later refers to 14.75 hours, but the award made was £205.80. | Upheld | — | £206 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £900
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27(1) ERA 1996
- Regulations 13 and 13A WTR 1998
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.