Case 6000875/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Shane Johnson v Ventrolla Limited Heard: by CVP in the North East Region — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000875/2024
- Decision date
- 15 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Shane Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Technical Surveyor employed by Ventrolla Limited from 30 August 2022 to 31 January 2024, brought claims for notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay following his summary dismissal. The Tribunal found that during his employment he had carried out competing work for the respondent's customers (including taking almost £5,500 from customer CK) without informing or seeking permission from the respondent, and that the work done for CK was of unsatisfactory standard and left her home in an unsafe condition. The Tribunal held that this conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied duties of fidelity and of trust and confidence, constituting gross misconduct entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. The notice pay claim therefore failed.
The Tribunal nonetheless upheld the claims for holiday pay and unauthorised deduction from wages. Applying Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the claimant was entitled to 11.24 days' accrued but untaken holiday at the daily rate of £142.38, giving £1,600.35. The respondent also admitted not paying the claimant for the 14 days worked between 16 and 31 January 2024, amounting to £1,873.72.
On the contractual offset point, the Tribunal accepted that the respondent had suffered loss as a result of the claimant's negligent behaviour and unsatisfactory standards of work for CK within the meaning of clause 11.1(b) of the contract, but held that the deduction right under clause 11.2 only arose after the respondent had first asked the claimant to repay its losses, which it had not done. The right to holiday pay and wages also arose as a matter of statute, and the repudiatory breach did not relieve the respondent of those obligations. Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the deductions were unauthorised.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay of £1,600.35 awarded under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, calculated as 11.24 days at a daily rate of £142.38. Subject to deduction of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,600 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages of £1,873.72 for 14 days worked between 16 and 31 January 2024 at a daily rate of £142.38. Tribunal found the respondent could not rely on clause 11.2 of the contract to withhold the wages because it had not first asked the claimant to repay its losses. | Upheld | — | £1,874 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay of £711.90 dismissed. Tribunal found the claimant's conduct (carrying out competing work for the respondent's customers and leaving unsafe work at customer CK's home) amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied duties of fidelity and of trust and confidence, constituting gross misconduct entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,474
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulations 13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- implied duty of fidelity
- implied duty of trust and confidence
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.