Case 4113728/2021 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4113728/2021 & 4113729/2021 Hearing Held by Cloud Based Video Platform (CVP) on February 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Iwona Zmidzinska st v Argyll Western Hotel Management Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4113728/2021
- Decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo Macleod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4113728/2021 & 4113729/2021 Hearing Held by Cloud Based Video Platform (CVP) on February 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Iwona Zmidzinska st
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims were heard undefended because the respondent did not lodge an ET3 response. The respondent had tried to seek extensions of time, but those applications were refused because they were not intimated to the claimants. Both claimants gave evidence at the CVP hearing, the second with a Polish interpreter, and the tribunal accepted their evidence as honest and straightforward.
For the 1st claimant, the tribunal found that she worked from 16 August 2019 until dismissal without notice on 22 July 2021. She had been placed on furlough from 14 November 2020 and received 80% of her contractual pay until May 2021, after which she was unpaid for 13 weeks. The tribunal held that she was not entitled to redundancy pay because even if dismissed with notice she would not have reached two years' continuous service by the relevant date, applying section 86(1)(a) and section 145(5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The 1st claimant was awarded £4,276.74 for unpaid wages at furlough rate, £334.12 for one week's notice, and £868.66 for 13 days' untaken holiday, making £5,479.52. For the 2nd claimant, the tribunal found 5 years' completed service, a weekly pay rate of £334.12, and redundancy entitlement calculated at 7.5 weeks because of her age and service. It also awarded £4,276.74 for 20 weeks' unpaid wages at furlough rate, £1,670.60 for five weeks' notice, and £1,870.96 for accrued but untaken holiday, making £10,324.20. Paragraph 16 states that the 2nd claimant's employment ended on 22 July 2022, although the earlier findings and paragraph 7 refer to 22 July 2021.
Claims and outcomes
8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | 1st claimant; the tribunal held that even if notice had been given she would not have reached two years' continuous service, so no redundancy payment was due. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | 1st claimant; 13 weeks of pay were unpaid from May 2021, and the award was calculated at the 80% furlough rate rather than full pay. | Upheld | — | £4,277 |
| Breach of contract | 1st claimant; one week's notice pay at her full weekly rate. | Upheld | — | £334 |
| Holiday pay | 1st claimant; 13 days' accrued but untaken holiday at £66.82 per day. | Upheld | — | £869 |
| Redundancy | 2nd claimant; 5 years' completed service and age-based redundancy entitlement produced 7.5 weeks' pay. The decision text states 22 July 2022 here, but paragraph 7 refers to 22 July 2021. | Upheld | — | £2,506 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | 2nd claimant; 20 weeks of pay were unpaid and the award was calculated at the 80% furlough rate rather than full pay. The decision text states 22 July 2022 here, but paragraph 7 refers to 22 July 2021. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,324
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 86(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 145(5) Employment Rights Act 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.