Case 4112077/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Armstrong v Dates and Ms Page for the September dates both solicitors Drimvargie Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4112077/2019
- Decision date
- 12 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Armstrong
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a breakfast cook from 26 October 2018 on £8.50 an hour and 30 hours over six days. The tribunal identified the live issues as unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages for April 2019, holiday pay, breach of contract concerning suspension, and breach of contract concerning notice. It found the claimant credible overall and treated the 10 June 2019 dismissal letter as the key contemporaneous record of the respondent's stated reason for dismissal.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant's wage queries on 4/5 May and 6 June 2019 were attempts to enforce a relevant statutory right under s.104 ERA 1996 and were made in good faith. However, it found no evidential basis to conclude that those queries were the sole or principal reason for dismissal. The tribunal accepted that the reason given in the 10 June letter was the claimant's failure to respond to the 27 May letter asking whether she was returning to work, and it dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
The April 2019 wages claim failed because the shortfall arose from the claimant's own calculation omitting unpaid breaks. The tribunal relied on the sign-in sheets, found that the claimant had not proved that she worked through the blank break entries, and held that there was no agreement that break time not taken would be paid. The separate holiday pay claim succeeded because the contract did not require accrued entitlement before leave could be taken or paid, the claimant was entitled to paid leave for 7 to 21 May 2019, and the tribunal awarded £311.69 after deducting £198.31 already paid.
On suspension, the tribunal held that the respondent had no reasonable and proper cause to suspend the claimant while she was on holiday and no reasonable and proper cause to suspend her without pay. It did, however, find the suspension lawful once she would otherwise have returned to work, and limited the award to £255 for the unpaid suspension period from 22 to 27 May 2019 to avoid double-counting with the holiday pay award. The notice pay breach of contract claim was dismissed because the June payment of SSP and basic hours totalled £255.75, enough to meet the contractual week's notice, and the separate expenses and wasted costs application was refused.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal accepted that the claimant queried deductions from wages on 4/5 May 2019 and again on 6 June 2019, and that those queries were attempts to enforce a relevant statutory right under s.104 ERA 1996 and were made in good faith. It nevertheless found no evidential basis to conclude that those queries were the sole or principal reason for dismissal; the reason given in the 10 June 2019 dismissal letter was the claimant's failure to respond to the 27 May 2019 letter about returning to work. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim in respect of the April 2019 pay period failed because the shortfall arose from the claimant's own calculation omitting unpaid breaks. The tribunal relied on the sign-in sheets and found that the claimant had not proved that she worked through the blank break entries or that she had any agreement to be paid for break time not taken. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the contract did not require holiday to be accrued before leave could be taken or paid. The claimant was entitled to paid leave for 7 to 21 May 2019, and the award of £311.69 was calculated by taking the two-week contractual holiday entitlement of £510 and deducting £198.31 already paid in the final wage payment. | Upheld | — | £312 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the respondent had no reasonable and proper cause to suspend the claimant while she was on holiday and no reasonable and proper cause to suspend her without pay. It found the suspension lawful once she would otherwise have returned to work, and limited the award to the unpaid suspension period from 22 to 27 May 2019 to avoid double-counting with the holiday pay award. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £567
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.104 ERA 1996
- Maund v Penwith District Council
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.88 ERA 1996
- reasonable and proper cause for suspension
- Crawford v Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust
- London Borough of Lambeth v Agoreyo
- Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd
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.