Case 4111872/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Marshall v Proclean (2017) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4111872/2019
- Decision date
- 4 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Marshall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr B Marshall was employed by Proclean (2017) Limited from February 2018 to 14 August 2019. He was paid £8.50 per hour and, subject to absence and customer complaints, a £5 per day bonus. The tribunal found that he had been shown a draft contract in March 2019 but not sent a signed version, that the holiday year ran with the calendar year, and that his working pattern changed from five days per week to three days per week from 1 April 2019.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant should have been paid £406.42 for the six working days of leave taken in July 2019, based on the average pay over the 12 weeks before the leave, so the £255 paid left £151.42 outstanding. It also found that, at termination on 14 August 2019, 7 days of accrued but untaken leave remained and that £490.77 was due for that entitlement, less £423.47 already paid, leaving £67.30.
For the August 2019 deductions, the tribunal held that the £17.47 mileage deduction and the £98.74 deduction for 11 hours said not to have been worked were not lawful. It found there was insufficient evidence that the vehicle had been used improperly or that the claimant had not attended the work in question. The bonus claim was dismissed because the tribunal accepted that customer complaints had been made and found the bonus was therefore not payable under the agreed conditions; the final award paragraph states £338.51 subject to statutory deductions.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Holiday pay for leave taken in July 2019. The tribunal used the 12-week average pay method, found £406.42 due for the leave, and deducted the £255 already paid. | Upheld | — | £151 |
| Working time regulations | Holiday pay for accrued but untaken leave at termination on 14 August 2019. The tribunal found 7 days outstanding, valued at £490.77, with £423.47 already paid. | Upheld | — | £67 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | August 2019 deduction described as excess mileage. The tribunal found no lawful basis for the deduction and insufficient evidence that the mileage was improperly incurred. | Upheld | — | £17 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | August 2019 deduction for 11 hours said not to have been worked. The tribunal found the respondent had not proved non-attendance or any lawful basis for the deduction. | Upheld | — | £99 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Bonus claim. The tribunal accepted that customer complaints had been made and found the bonus was therefore not payable under the agreed terms. The dispositive paragraph states a total award of £338.51 subject to statutory deductions, although the itemised figures in the reasons do not exactly sum to that figure. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £339
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- Regulations 13 and 13A Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 16 Working Time Regulations 1998
- sections 212-214 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 14 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.