Case 4107978/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Chrzaszcz v BeDental Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107978/2021
- Decision date
- 15 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Neilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Chrzaszcz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs P Chrzaszcz was employed by BeDental Limited from July 2019 as a dental receptionist. The tribunal found that her December 2019 resignation did not end the employment relationship: after that letter, the parties agreed that she would work every second Saturday, which was treated as a continuation of the existing employment with a reduced-hours variation rather than a termination. She was placed on furlough from 21 March 2020 under a written April 2020 variation, which she accepted, and she continued to receive monthly furlough payments of £341.54 until the end of November 2020.
The tribunal found that the respondent stopped paying her after November 2020 without effectively terminating the contract or ending the furlough arrangement. It held that the employment continued until the claimant gave one week's notice by email on 1 March 2021, so the employment ended on 8 March 2021. On that basis, the claimant remained entitled to furlough-linked pay for the period 1 December 2020 to 8 March 2021 at £341.54 per month. The unlawful deduction claim succeeded, but the tribunal deducted the £100 paid in December 2020 and made no further compensation award under section 24(2) ERA 1996. The amount ordered on that claim was £1,003.44.
On holiday pay, the tribunal rejected the claim for 2020 carry-over holiday. It was not satisfied that it had been not reasonably practicable for the claimant to take that leave because of the effects of coronavirus, and it found no relevant agreement permitting carry-over of the 1.6 weeks additional leave. The claimant did succeed in respect of accrued leave for 1 January 2021 to 8 March 2021, which the tribunal calculated at 1.03 weeks and £81.18.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had not provided a written statement of particulars of employment. Under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 it awarded the minimum amount of two weeks' pay, calculated as £157.64, and declined to award the higher amount because it was not just and equitable in the circumstances. The total award across the successful claims was £1,242.26.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant remained employed and on the furlough variation agreed in April 2020 until 8 March 2021. It found an unlawful deduction of £1,103.44 for the period 1 December 2020 to 8 March 2021, then deducted the £100 paid in December 2020. No additional compensation was awarded under section 24(2) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,003 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal rejected the claim for carry-over of 2020 leave because it was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to take that leave as a result of coronavirus. It also found no relevant agreement allowing carry-over of the 1.6 weeks additional leave. The claimant succeeded only in respect of accrued leave from 1 January 2021 to 8 March 2021. | Upheld | — | £81 |
| Other | The tribunal found that no written statement of particulars of employment had been provided and awarded the statutory minimum of two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. It did not award the maximum amount because it was not just and equitable to do so. | Upheld | — | £158 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,242
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 23(1)(a) ERA 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 24 ERA 1996
- regulation 14(2) WTR 1998
- regulation 13(10) WTR 1998
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.