Case 8001032/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Onyan v Represented by: Mr J Aluya, lay representative Eildon Care Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001032/2024
- Decision date
- 29 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Onyan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Onyan was employed by Eildon Care Ltd from 30 April to 3 July 2024 as a Care Assistant. Her contract provided for a six-month probationary period, one week of notice during probation, and a clause allowing the respondent to terminate immediately and make payment in lieu of notice. The tribunal recorded that she was paid monthly and that she had taken no holiday before termination.
On 3 July 2024 the claimant reported for work but was told by Ms Brown that her employment was ending with immediate effect and that she should go home. Her final pay was received on 25 July 2024 and the payslip showed gross payments of £1,056 for two weeks' pay, £526.80 for 43.90 hours of holiday pay, and £528.00 as pay in lieu of notice, with deductions of £34.00 for uniform and £59.00 for disclosure checking. The tribunal noted that the final pay was issued after ACAS Early Conciliation and the claim had started, which explained why the matter was raised.
The tribunal dismissed the unpaid wages complaint because the claimant did not work on 3 July 2024 and the contract only entitled her to pay for shifts worked. It dismissed the notice complaint because the contractual notice entitlement had been met by the separate PILON payment of £528.00, which was clearly itemised on the payslip. It dismissed the holiday pay complaint because, on the tribunal's reasoning, accrued leave was calculated only up to the termination date and there was no contractual basis for adding an extra week's accrual. As all complaints failed, no remedy or ACAS Code reduction arose for consideration.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim that the respondent should have paid for 3 July 2024, when the claimant reported for work but was sent home immediately. The tribunal held she did not work any shift that day and had no contractual or other entitlement to pay for work not carried out. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim concerning one week's notice pay on termination. The tribunal found the respondent exercised the contractual right to terminate immediately and later paid a payment in lieu of notice of £528.00, which satisfied the entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim concerning accrued but untaken holiday on termination. The tribunal held leave accrued only up to the termination date of 3 July 2024, not through an additional notice week, so the paid holiday amount of £526.80 was correct. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 86 to 91 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulations 13 and 13A 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.