Case 4123463/2018 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no. 4123463/2018 Held at Edinburgh on February 2019 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mrs Jean Jaffray v Two Palms Hotel and Events Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4123463/2018
- Decision date
- 6 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sandy Meiklejohn
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no. 4123463/2018 Held at Edinburgh on February 2019 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mrs Jean Jaffray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs Jean Jaffray, brought claims arising from unpaid wages, pension contributions deducted from her pay but not remitted, and holiday pay. The respondent did not lodge an ET3 or otherwise participate in the proceedings. The tribunal allowed an amendment to the ET1 so that holiday pay could be claimed, finding that the omission from the form was an oversight and that the point had been foreshadowed in correspondence.
On the claimant's evidence, which the tribunal found credible, she was employed by the respondent from 21 February 2018 until 17 October 2018. She worked an average of 50 hours per week at £9 per hour, giving gross weekly pay of £450. The tribunal accepted her calculations that £1,116.62 was due in unpaid wages up to 20 September 2018, £977.76 was due in unpaid wages between 21 September 2018 and 17 October 2018, £321.29 had been deducted for pension contributions but not remitted to the pension provider, and £1,124.42 was due in holiday pay for the period from 1 April 2018 to 17 October 2018.
The tribunal held that the failure to pay the amounts due in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the reasons constituted unlawful deductions from wages. It also held that the pension deductions were unlawful because, although the deductions were required, the respondent had failed to remit the sums timeously to the pension provider. Separately, the tribunal found that the respondent had not issued a compliant statement of main terms and conditions of employment under section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Because section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 applied, the tribunal was required to make an award of at least two weeks' wages and could increase that to four weeks' wages if just and equitable. In view of the respondent's non-compliance, the tribunal awarded the higher amount of £1,800 under section 38. The bottom-line awards therefore comprised £2,415.67 for unlawful deductions, £1,124.42 for holiday pay, and £1,800 under section 38.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Included unpaid wages of £1,116.62 for the period up to 20 September 2018, unpaid wages of £977.76 for 21 September 2018 to 17 October 2018, and £321.29 of pension contributions deducted from pay but not remitted to the pension provider. | Upheld | — | £2,416 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal allowed an amendment to add holiday pay, accepted the claimant's calculation, and awarded the net figure sought. | Upheld | — | £1,124 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,340
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- just and equitable in all the circumstances
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.