Case 4113661/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Anderson v Corporate Washroom Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4113661/2021
- Decision date
- 7 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J McCluskey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant began on a contract for £9 per hour and 35 hours per week, that the parties later agreed an extra two hours for van cleaning backdated to 1 October 2020, and that by late April 2021 they agreed a new working arrangement from 1 May 2021 under which he would work four days, 32 hours per week, at £10 per hour while using the fifth day for his own business. The tribunal relied heavily on contemporaneous documents, including the notebook notes and the 28 and 29 April 2021 text messages, and rejected the claimant's case that he remained entitled to 37 hours per week at that stage.
On the unlawful deduction from wages claim, the tribunal held that the claimant had been underpaid by £0.50 per hour for 32 hours each week between 1 May 2021 and 10 September 2021, producing an award of £304 less tax and national insurance. It rejected the challenge to the £30 bus-lane deduction, finding the contract signed on 11 February 2021 authorised deductions for losses caused by the claimant's carelessness, negligence or recklessness or breach of rules, and that the deduction fell within s.13 ERA. The holiday pay claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant had accrued 11.14 days' leave, taken 12 days, carried forward 2 days from the previous year, and had already been paid £105.84 in final salary for accrued but untaken leave.
The breach of contract claim about mobile phone costs also failed. The tribunal found that the parties had agreed reimbursement of £24 per month, not full reimbursement of the monthly contract cost, and that the claimant had been repaid all sums due. The two unfair dismissal claims under s.104 ERA and s.104A ERA both failed because the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was the conduct concerns set out in the 5 and 6 September 2021 emails, namely timekeeping, inability to take instruction, speaking out of turn and lack of honesty, rather than the claimant's complaints about wages or the national minimum wage. The s.93 ERA complaint about the written statement of reasons also failed because the tribunal found the reasons given were adequate and true.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the hourly-rate shortfall claim for 1 May 2021 to 10 September 2021, finding the agreed rate was £10 per hour for 32 hours per week and that the respondent paid £9.50 per hour. The £30 bus-lane deduction was held authorised by the written contract and therefore failed. | Upheld | — | £304 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the mobile phone reimbursement agreement was £24 per month, not reimbursement of the full monthly cost or £71 per month, and that the claimant had been reimbursed all sums due. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had taken more leave than he had accrued, but the final salary payment of £105.84 for accrued but untaken holiday discharged any remaining liability. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The section 104 ERA claim failed because the tribunal found the dismissal was for timekeeping, inability to take instruction, speaking out of turn and lack of honesty, not for asserting wages rights. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The section 104A ERA claim failed because the tribunal found the dismissal was not because the claimant sought to enforce the national minimum wage. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The section 93 ERA complaint about the written statement of reasons for dismissal failed; the reasons given were found to be adequate and true. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £304
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.93 ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.104A ERA 1996
- Regulations 13, 13A and 14 WTR 1998
- balance of probabilities
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.