Wilson v Goodlad Coffee Limited — 2024

The respondent's ET3 was rejected under Rule 18 because it was lodged outside the time limit and no application for an extension of time was made, so the claim proceeded undefended. The tribunal found that the claimant worked for the respondent from 1 March 2023 to 30 November 2023, that she worked five days a week for eight hours a day at £12.50 per hour, that she took four days' holiday, and that she was not provided with payslips throughout her employment.

The complaint about deductions from wages in respect of tax was dismissed. The tribunal held that deductions of tax are authorised by statute and are lawful deductions, and that the respondent's alleged failure to pay the deducted sums to HMRC did not make the deductions unlawful. It also said that any issue about payment of tax, or the amount deducted, was a matter for HMRC rather than the tribunal.

The holiday claim succeeded. Applying the Working Time Regulations 1998, the tribunal found that the claimant had accrued 21 days' holiday during her nine months of employment, less the four days she had taken, leaving 17 untaken days. At £100 per day, it awarded £1,700 gross as payment in lieu of untaken holiday.

The tribunal also upheld the complaint about underpayment in July 2023 as a breach of contract. It found that the claimant had worked 51 hours at £12.50 per hour and was entitled to three weeks' Statutory Sick Pay at £109.40 per week, producing £953.20 in total, but she was paid only £724.82. The resulting shortfall was £228.38, which was awarded as gross damages. Finally, the tribunal made a declaration under section 11 ERA 1996 that the respondent had failed, throughout the claimant's employment, to provide an itemised pay statement as required by section 8 ERA 1996.