Mr W Dymond v Represented by Mr J McCourt Employment Consultant Professional Canine and Security Limited — 2021

This was a holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The claimant worked as a security guard at Lidl Greenock and sought payment for untaken leave on termination. The respondent argued that the contract and handbook formed a relevant agreement under which unused leave could not be carried forward and no payment in lieu would be made.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant asked how to apply for holidays, asked how many days he had outstanding, and made holiday requests that were refused. It found that he was not initially advised how to take holidays, was not reminded or encouraged to take leave before the end of the holiday year, and was told by Mr Roberts that he could not take holidays at the end of December because the company was too busy.

The tribunal accepted that the contract and handbook formed a relevant agreement in principle, but held that the Working Time Regulations protected the statutory entitlement to a payment in lieu on termination. Relying on regulation 14(2) and Witley and District Mens Club v MacKay, the tribunal concluded that a term purporting to provide that no sum would be payable on termination was void under regulation 35(1)(a). It rejected the respondent's submission that the claimant was only entitled to 10 days.

The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to 14 days' holiday pay, based on a gross average weekly wage of £493 and a daily rate of £98.65. It therefore awarded £1,381 and recorded that the claim succeeded.