Case 4111295/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Clark v Abby Cleaning Scotland Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4111295/2019
- Decision date
- 9 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Clark
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Clark worked for Abby Cleaning Scotland Ltd from 17 September 2018. Her contract recorded an annual salary of £20,000, but the tribunal found her actual annual salary was £22,000, equivalent to a daily rate of £83.33. She resigned on 30 April 2019, gave notice, worked until 8 May, and then produced a fit note for stress. The respondent arranged agency cover while she was absent, and the claimant later signed a contract with another employer on 16 May 2019, but the tribunal accepted her evidence that that employment did not actually start until 10 June 2019.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's time-bar argument. It held that time under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 ran from 15 June 2019, the day the wages containing the deduction were paid, not from the earlier letter of 24 May 2019. Because ACAS early conciliation began on 12 September 2019, the claim presented on 28 September 2019 was in time. The tribunal also accepted the claimant's evidence that ACAS had not mentioned time limits.
On the merits, the tribunal found the respondent had used the wrong daily rate when paying May wages and holiday pay, producing shortfalls of £18.10 and £16.83. It also held that the contractual notice clause did not authorise the deduction of £912.89 for cover costs. The clause only permitted deductions for losses or additional costs arising from breach of contract, and the tribunal found those costs had been incurred because the claimant was absent on sick leave, not because of any contractual breach. It concluded that the deduction was unlawful and ordered repayment of £947.82 gross, with tax and national insurance to be deducted in the usual way.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint about deductions from final pay. The award comprised £18.10 for underpaid wages in May, £16.83 for holiday pay underpaid through use of the wrong daily rate, and £912.89 deducted as 'costs to cover notice'. Paragraph 68 refers to £912.80, but the arithmetic in the findings and the final total (£947.82) only works if the deduction was £912.89, so that appears to be a typographical error. | Upheld | — | £948 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £948
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.23(4) ERA 1996 reasonably practicable
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.