Case 8000264/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L McKay v Heritage Funeral Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000264/2024
- Decision date
- 4 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L McKay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs L McKay worked for Heritage Funeral Services Ltd in two spells. The written terms signed in July 2022 were treated as governing the second spell as well, although no new written contract was issued when she returned in October 2023. By the termination date, the parties agreed that she had taken five days of holiday in excess of her accrued entitlement, so the respondent was entitled to deduct five days' pay on that account. The remaining wages issue was whether the respondent could also withhold two days' pay for work done between 1 and 9 February 2024 by reference to a verbal arrangement about repayment of a £400 embalming exam fee.
The tribunal accepted Ms McKay's evidence about that arrangement and held that the exam-fee agreement did not authorise the February 2024 deduction under section 13 ERA 1996. The deduction of £184.62 gross was therefore unauthorised. The tribunal also rejected any suggestion that the respondent's earlier failure to recover the exam fee when the first spell ended amounted to a waiver or implied variation that would make the February deduction lawful.
On the notice issue, the tribunal preferred Ms McKay's account of the 9 February 2024 conversation. It found that she attended work intending to give one month's notice of resignation, but that Mr D, angered by a reference request from Glasgow University, told her she could leave or he would dismiss her, said she was not welcome in the building, and gave no explanation of the alleged gross misconduct. The tribunal held that the departure was not a consensual resignation and that the respondent really terminated the contract on 9 February 2024.
The tribunal found no proved gross misconduct or other repudiatory breach that would justify dismissal without notice. The contractual notice provision in the written terms required one month's notice, so the respondent was liable for breach of contract when it dismissed her without notice or payment in lieu. Damages were assessed at one month's net pay, calculated as £2,000 less about £74.10 tax and £95.20 employees' national insurance, giving £1,830.70. The tribunal also held that Ms McKay had not failed to mitigate her loss, given her imminent University of Glasgow role and the short period to 8 March 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that £184.62 gross was unlawfully deducted from February 2024 wages. The separate oral arrangement about repayment of the £400 exam fee could not authorise the deduction because there was no relevant written contractual provision and no prior written consent. | Upheld | — | £185 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal treated this as a wrongful dismissal / breach of contract claim arising from the failure to give one month's notice. It found that C was dismissed on 9 February 2024, that no gross misconduct or other repudiatory breach was proved, and assessed damages at one month's net pay. | Upheld | — | £1,831 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,015
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 13 of ERA 1996
- Riley v Direct Line Insurance Group Ltd [2023] EAT 118
- sections 86 to 88 of ERA 1996
- repudiatory breach of contract
- duty to mitigate losses
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.