Case 4111382/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone)10 Mr R Graham v Off-World Industries Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111382/2021
- Decision date
- 7 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone)10 Mr R Graham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint and statutory redundancy payment claim had already been dismissed following withdrawal at a previous preliminary hearing on case management. The live issues at this hearing were breach of contract notice pay and unpaid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations.
Mr Graham began work on 14 August 2020 as a kitchen supervisor on variable hours. He worked for about 5.5 weeks at an average gross weekly rate of £404, then went on sick leave and received SSP at £95.85 per week until late October 2020. The respondent then moved him to furlough pay at £315.85 per week. The tribunal accepted his evidence that he sent Planday messages and GP certificates during this period, and that he also sent a text on 28 April 2021. It rejected Mr Meiklejohn's evidence insofar as he denied those communications.
On the notice claim, the tribunal held that the respondent did not dismiss the claimant on 19 July 2021 or at all. Applying Gisda Cyf v Barratt and Sandle v Adecco UK Ltd, it found Mr Meiklejohn's email of 19 July 2021 did not communicate dismissal, because it said only that there were no additional hours available 'at this time', the claimant was on a zero-hours contract, and no rota had been issued. The tribunal also found the claimant had not resigned earlier by failing to attend while he remained signed off and reasonably believed he was still on furlough. It held that the employment ended on 31 July 2021 when he took up new employment, which was incompatible with continuing employment on the terms he understood. The breach of contract notice pay claim therefore failed.
On holiday pay, the tribunal held that the unsigned written contract had been accepted by conduct and was a relevant agreement fixing the holiday year at 1 January to 31 December. It found no annual leave had been properly notified or taken in 2021, the contract's closure paragraph did not validly displace Regulation 15 notice requirements, and the £46.66 January 2021 top-up did not mean the leave had been used up. It calculated that 3.3 weeks accrued in 2021 and 1.5 weeks of basic entitlement carried over from 2020 remained payable, used an average weekly pay rate of £404 rather than SSP or furlough pay, and awarded £1,535.20 less £46.66, resulting in £1,488.54 gross.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed following withdrawal at a previous preliminary hearing on case management; not revisited in the reasons for this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed following withdrawal at a previous preliminary hearing on case management; not revisited in the reasons for this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for one week's notice pay dismissed because the tribunal found the respondent had not dismissed the claimant and held that the employment ended when he took up new employment on 31 July 2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay award for accrued untaken leave on termination. The tribunal calculated 3.8 weeks at £404 per week, less the £46.66 top-up payment made in January 2021. | Upheld | — | £1,489 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,489
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Gisda Cyf v Barratt
- Sandle v Adecco UK Ltd
- Reg 13 WTR 1998
- Reg 13A WTR 1998
- Reg 14 WTR 1998
- Reg 15 WTR 1998
- Reg 16 WTR 1998
- s.224 ERA 1996
- Kigass Aero Components v Brown
- Stringer
- Pereda v Madrid Mobilidad SA
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd
- Wess v Science Museum Group
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.