Case 4112049/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Pavlova v BS Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 4112049/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Pavlova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs M Pavlova, a Bulgarian waitress born on 7 October 1972, worked for the respondents on a zero-hours contract with an understanding that she would work 16 hours per week. Her work moved from Hello Bishopbriggs Ltd to BS64 Ltd, and the tribunal accepted that D53 Ltd later took over the premises, equipment, staff and trade so that liabilities passed to D53 Ltd under TUPE. BS64 Ltd was in liquidation and D53 Ltd did not appear.
The claimant alleged race discrimination on the basis of nationality and age discrimination. She said she was sent home early when work was quiet, did not receive breaks, did not get lunch, was told not to speak with kitchen staff, and was later asked to sit apart from the kitchen staff at lunch. The tribunal accepted that some of this treatment was upsetting, but found no basis to conclude that the burden of proof had shifted to the respondents. It accepted that she was the logical person to be sent home early because she was on a zero-hours contract, that others smoked and therefore had breaks, and that lunch was allowed when she worked until 5pm. It also found that the unexplained matters did not justify an inference of nationality discrimination, including because the same arrangements continued while a Polish manager was in place and no reason was suggested why he would have been motivated by nationality.
On age, the claimant relied on the hiring of four 16-year-olds while she was being sent home early. The tribunal found that this did not amount to unfavourable treatment because the new workers were said to work evenings and weekends when the respondents were busier, and there was no reduction in her working time attributable to their recruitment. The discrimination claims were therefore unsuccessful, and the tribunal said there was no description of impact that would justify an injury to feelings award.
The claimant succeeded on her money claims. The tribunal found that she had 32.52 hours of accrued but untaken holiday at termination, worth £267.11; that she was due £20 in respect of tips for her final month; that she had 8 hours of unpaid compulsory training worth £65.68; and that she was underpaid by £295.56 because her start time had been recorded as 1.30pm rather than 1.00pm. The total award was £648.35, and the tribunal directed that these sums be paid by D53 Ltd because the liabilities had transferred to it under TUPE.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claimant alleged nationality-based discrimination; the tribunal treated this as the race discrimination aspect and found no sufficient evidence that the treatment was because of nationality. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The claimant relied on the hiring of four 16-year-olds while she was being sent home early, but the tribunal found they worked evenings and weekends when the respondents were busier and did not take hours from her. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay for 32.52 hours of accrued but untaken leave at termination. | Upheld | — | £267 |
| Breach of contract | Award for tips due in the claimant's final month of employment. | Upheld | — | £20 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award for 8 hours spent on compulsory training that was unpaid. | Upheld | — | £66 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award for underpayment caused by the manager entering a 1.30pm start time when the claimant says she started at 1.00pm. | Upheld | — | £296 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £648
- across all upheld claims
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.