Case 4111962/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Irem Sunay v No Appearance Safran (Edinburgh) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111962/2021
- Decision date
- 6 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Sorrell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Irem Sunay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe second claimant did not attend the hearing. The respondent produced an ACAS settlement agreement, and the tribunal dismissed that claim under Rule 47. The first claimant later withdrew her unfair dismissal claim because she accepted that she had not completed two years' service.
On the wage claim, the tribunal found that the first claimant started work on 15 July 2021 as a waitress, was paid £9 per hour, had no written contract or particulars, and was not always paid for all hours worked. It accepted some of the respondent's time-sheet evidence, rejected the reliability of the claimant's pay-envelope figures, and found that she had worked 216.5 hours in total but had been paid for only 159 hours. The tribunal therefore found an unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded £517.50, representing 57.5 hours at £9 per hour. It also held that the respondent's cash tip system meant tips did not form part of contractual remuneration.
The tribunal upheld the holiday pay claim and calculated the award at £208.48 by reference to the claimant's average weekly pay of £278.35 and the statutory 5.6 weeks' holiday entitlement. It dismissed the notice pay claim because the claimant had resigned and her employment ended on 25 August 2021. On the itemised pay slips claim, the tribunal found that no pay slips had been provided at or before the time wages were paid and made a declaration to that effect, but no further monetary award was made. The monetary awards totalled £725.98.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Second claimant did not attend; the respondent produced an ACAS settlement agreement and the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Withdrawn at the hearing because the first claimant accepted she had not met the two-year qualifying period. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the first claimant had worked 216.5 hours but been paid for 159 hours, leaving 57.5 unpaid hours. It rejected the claimant's pay-envelope evidence and held that tips paid through the respondent's system were not part of remuneration. | Upheld | — | £518 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay was calculated by reference to the first claimant's average weekly pay over her seven-week employment period and her statutory 5.6 weeks' leave entitlement. | Upheld | — | £208 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the first claimant was not entitled to notice pay because she had resigned and her employment ended on 25 August 2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £726
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- Wrottesley v Regent Street Florida Restaurant [1951] 2 K.B.
- s.27 ERA 1996
- Regs 13, 13A and 16 WTR 1998
- Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Stringer 2009 ICR 985, HL
- s.86 ERA 1996
- ss.8, 9, 11 and 12 ERA 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.