Case 4112749/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Cannon v Allma Construction Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4112749/2018
- Decision date
- 14 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Paul McMahon
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Cannon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Cannon was employed by Allma Construction Ltd as a Plant/Machine Operator from 3 February 2017 under a contract that required one week's notice. His employment ended on 12 April 2018. The tribunal preferred the evidence of Mr Gerald Rea and Mr John Barr that Mr Rea told the claimant the respondent would pay one week's pay in lieu of notice the following week if he stayed until the end of his shift, and that there was no express contractual right allowing payment in lieu to be withheld or made conditional in that way.
Applying the authorities cited in the judgment, including Delany v Staples, Morrish v NTL Group Ltd and Gunton v Richmond-upon-Thames BC, the tribunal held that terminating the claimant's employment without notice while offering conditional notice pay was a repudiatory breach of contract. The claimant finished the task he was working on and left the site at about 2pm on 12 April 2018, which the tribunal treated as a reasonable and prompt acceptance of that repudiation. The tribunal awarded damages of £680.55 gross, representing one week's normal wages, subject to lawful deductions for tax and employee National Insurance if required.
The overtime claim was dismissed. Although the claimant thought he may have worked 42 hours in the final week, he could not identify the extra hours. The respondent's weekly allocation sheet and payroll evidence showed he worked 40 hours and was paid £698 gross for that week, including the overtime hour at his normal hourly rate of £17.45, so there was no unlawful deduction from wages.
The holiday pay claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found the respondent's holiday year ran from 1 January to 31 December, that the claimant was entitled to 29 days' paid holiday per year, and that by the date of termination he had accrued 8.1 days but had taken 10 days, including 5 days during the New Year shutdown and 5 days during the Easter shutdown. On that basis, no accrued but untaken holiday remained unpaid at termination.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim concerned failure to give contractual notice or pay in lieu of notice. The tribunal found there was no express PILON clause, held the respondent repudiated the contract by making notice pay conditional on the claimant staying until the end of his shift, and treated the claimant as having accepted that repudiation by leaving after completing his work. | Upheld | — | £681 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted the respondent's allocation sheet and payroll evidence showing the claimant worked and was paid for 40 hours in the final week. The claimant could not identify additional unpaid overtime hours. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday year ran from 1 January to 31 December. The tribunal found the claimant had accrued 8.1 days' holiday but had taken 10 days, so no unpaid holiday remained at termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £681
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £681
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.86 ERA 1996
- Delany v Staples
- Morrish v NTL Group Ltd
- Gunton v Richmond-upon-Thames BC
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regs 13, 13A, 14 and 16
- A G Bracey Ltd v Iles
- Bessenden Bessenden Properties Ltd v Corness
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.