Case 4109710/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Arshid Malik v A&R Invesment Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4109710/2021
- Decision date
- 15 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Arshid Malik
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence on the central dispute about hours and pay. It found that Mr Arshid Malik started work on 1 September 2019 as a customer services adviser, agreed to work 25 hours a week, and was to be paid £7.50 an hour, amounting to £187.50 a week. It accepted his evidence and that of supporting witnesses over the respondent's account that he worked 11 or 10 hours a week for £100, relying on contemporaneous messages and letters, the absence of supporting records from the respondent, and concerns about the reliability of the payslips.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant had been underpaid below the National Minimum Wage before furlough and had also suffered unlawful deductions during the furlough period and when payments were not made in full. It calculated that he should have received higher amounts throughout the employment and awarded £4,394.59 for unlawful deduction of wages. The tribunal also noted that a notice pay issue had been mentioned in submissions but was not before it for determination because it had not been pleaded.
The tribunal separately upheld the holiday pay claim. It found that the claimant had not taken annual leave during his employment, that leave from the 2019/2020 leave year carried over because it was not reasonable to take it during the pandemic, and that the termination payment should have included that carried-over leave under regulation 14. It concluded that £1,733.10 should have been paid in lieu of untaken holidays, less the £681.28 already paid, producing an award of £1,051.82.
The tribunal also made declarations that the respondent breached s.8 ERA 1996 by failing to provide itemised pay statements at or before payment, and breached s.1 ERA 1996 by failing to provide written initial terms and conditions. Because the claimant succeeded in a Schedule 5 claim and the respondent had not complied with s.1, the tribunal made the minimum s.38 Employment Act 2002 additional award of four weeks' wages, which it calculated as £872. The total award was £6,318.41.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant worked 25 hours a week at £7.50 per hour, so he was paid below the National Minimum Wage before furlough and also underpaid or unpaid during later furlough and working periods. The award of £4,394.59 covered the wage deductions across the employment period; holiday pay was dealt with separately. | Upheld | — | £4,395 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that untaken leave from the 2019/2020 leave year carried over because it was not reasonable for the claimant to take that leave during the pandemic. It calculated that £1,733.10 should have been paid in lieu of untaken holiday on termination, less £681.28 actually paid. | Upheld | — | £1,052 |
| Other | Declaration that the respondent breached the claimant's right to receive an itemised pay statement under s.8 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the payslips were not provided at or before the time wages were paid. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Declaration that the respondent breached the claimant's right to a written statement of initial employment particulars under s.1 ERA 1996. The tribunal also made an additional award of £872 under s.38 Employment Act 2002 because the respondent failed to provide the statement and the claimant succeeded in a Schedule 5 claim. | Upheld | — | £872 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,318
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.28 National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.8 ERA 1996
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.