Case 6032735/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J.Vartaye v Teleperformance limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6032735/2025
- Decision date
- 13 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J.Vartaye
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss J. Vartaye, brought complaints against Teleperformance Limited concerning notice pay, unlawful deduction from wages, and holiday pay. The matter was heard on 13 February 2026 at Newcastle upon Tyne Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge T.R. Smith, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Ms Lundy, an employee relations manager.
The tribunal dismissed the complaints of non-payment of notice pay and unlawful deduction from wages, finding that neither was well founded. The complaint in respect of holiday pay was well founded; the tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £3.86, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint of non-payment of notice pay was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £4 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.