Case 4111329/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Owoh v Resolvecall Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4111329/2019
- Decision date
- 6 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R King
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Owoh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr B Owoh worked for Resolvecall Limited as a field agent from 22 July 2019 to 11 September 2019. He took annual leave in late July and early August, then had car trouble at the end of August. The respondent treated him as absent without leave from 3 September 2019, wrote on 5 September saying it would accept his one week's notice if he did not respond, and then wrote on 10 September terminating the contract with effect from that day. The tribunal noted that although he had ticked the unfair dismissal box, that claim was not accepted because he had insufficient qualifying service.
On the wage deduction issues, the tribunal held that the six days' excess holiday pay had been lawfully deducted because clause 9 of the contract allowed recovery of overpaid holiday. It held, however, that the £200 set-up/start-up fee was not recoverable: the contract only permitted that deduction if the claimant terminated his own employment, and silence in response to the 5 September letter was not clear and unambiguous notice of resignation. The respondent had therefore dismissed him, rather than him resigning, and the £200 deduction from final salary was an unauthorised deduction from wages.
On notice pay, the tribunal found that the probationary clause gave one week's notice unless the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct, which he was not. It therefore awarded gross notice pay of £75.15. The tribunal also found that the claimant had worked for the London Ambulance Centre without authority between 3 and 11 September 2019, but that did not permit the respondent to withhold pay for the absence days because the contract did not authorise deductions in those circumstances; instead, for those days he was not ready, willing and able to work. After offsetting the £546.15 total award against the £271 shown as due to the respondent, the balance payable was £275.15, consisting of £200 net and £75.15 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said it did not accept the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had insufficient qualifying service. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the £200 set-up/start-up cost deduction from final salary was unauthorised. It held that the holiday-pay deduction was contractually authorised and that the absence-hours items did not give rise to a recoverable deduction. | Upheld | — | £200 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent terminated the claimant during his probationary period without paying the one week's notice required by the contract, and the tribunal awarded gross notice pay of £75.15. | Upheld | — | £75 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £275
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- Morton Sundour Fabrics v Shaw
- Doble v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd
- Rai v Somerfield Stores
- Societe Generale, London Branch v Geys
- Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
- North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust v Gregg
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.