Claimant v The Suntrap Bar Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 5 February 2024 to 11 February 2024, awarding £400 gross for the deduction made.
The tribunal found the respondent made an unauthorised deduction by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date employment ended, awarding £200.
The tribunal found the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay well-founded, awarding £400 as damages representing one week's notice pay calculated on gross basis.
The tribunal found the claimant's complaint that the respondent breached Regulation 11 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was not well-founded and dismissed it.
The tribunal found the claimant's claim of automatic unfair dismissal was not well founded and dismissed it.
The tribunal found the complaint that the claimant was subjected to a detriment for alleging that the respondent had infringed her statutory rights under section 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and dismissed it.
Facts
The claimant worked for The Suntrap Bar Ltd in the hospitality sector. She brought multiple claims including unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 5-11 February 2024, failure to pay accrued holiday pay on termination, breach of contract for failure to pay notice, and claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for asserting statutory rights. She also claimed breach of Working Time Regulations. The case was heard remotely over two days.
Decision
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for unauthorised wage deductions (£400), unpaid holiday pay (£200), and notice pay (£400), totaling £1,000. However, the tribunal dismissed her claims against the second respondent individually, her Working Time Regulations claim, her automatic unfair dismissal claim, and her detriment claim under s.45A ERA 1996.
Practical note
Successfully claiming wage deductions, holiday pay and notice pay does not automatically support wider claims of automatic unfair dismissal or detriment for asserting statutory rights, which require separate evidential basis.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2500975/2024
- Decision date
- 5 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister