P Sutton v Cheshire Space Ltd: 6009006/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The respondent failed , in breach of reg. 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, to pay the claimant compensation for untaken annual leave.[2]The respondent failed to pay the claimant the total sum of £1344.00 , which sum the respondent is ordered to pay him. This is a gross sum and the claimant is responsible for accounting to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due upon it.REASONS
[1]On 16 March 2025 the claimant, who is unrepresented, brought a claim of failure to pay holiday pay arising upon the termination of his employment with the respondent on 20 December 2024.[2]The respondent did not respond within the allotted time frame, but its response was accepted by the Tribunal on 29 April 2025. The respondent stated its intention to defend the claims, but, other than to state that the claimant had been paid in full, did not set out any other details of its defence to the claim.[3]This hearing was listed some time ago, and, other than the response, nothing further has been heard from the respondent. The claimant had not had had any further recent communication with it. 1 of 5[4]The claimant attended, but no one attended the hearing for the respondent. No communication was received from it explaining why this was so. The claimant in these circumstances urged the Tribunal to proceed to hear his claim.[5]The Employment Judge considered the provisions of rule 47, and determined that he should proceed to hear the claim.[6]The claimant explained his claim. His employment with the respondent started, it was established, on 5 March 2024, and ended on 20 December 2024. His rate of basic pay was £16 per hour, and he worked a 5 day week, for 8 hours a day. 7.As he was employed for less than a full year, his total holiday entitlement would be pro – rata, over some 9 months of employment. The claimant took, and was paid for, some days of holiday.[8]Fortunately, the claimant was able to provide the Tribunal with a screenshot of an email from someone from accounts to his manager Kez Fanklin which shows that he had, as at week 45 (which is the week commencing 4 November 2024) just over 7 days of untaken leave due to him. 9.The claimant continued to work, and took no more holiday, up until 20 December 2024, when his employment ended upon the expiry of the notice he had given. That week was week 51.[10]The claimant was paid no payment in lieu of untaken holiday, being initially told that this would be paid after Christmas. He was, however, later told by the business owner that he would not be paid, as he had been overpaid previously. That defence has not been advanced in the response.[11]The Employment Judge was accordingly satisfied that the claimant had not been paid for untaken holiday outstanding on the termination of his employment.[12]He then went on to calculate the sums due to the claimant. The claimant’s rate of pay , on a daily basis, was £128. He was due 7 days of holiday up until week 45, so was entitled, on that basis to pay in lieu in the sum of 7 x £128 = £896.00.[13]The employment continued until the end of week 51, so the claimant accrued (in accordance with Reg. 15A of the Working Time Regulations 1998) at the rate of 2.33 days per month, a further 6 weeks, in total 3.5 days (applying Reg. 15A(3)), which at £128 per day amounts to £448.00.[14]The Tribunal accordingly find that the respondent failed , in breach of Reg. 15 to pay the claimant the total sum of £1344.00, which sum the respondent is ordered to pay him.[15]Whilst such pay is taxable, the claimant is no longer employed by the respondent, and his circumstances will have changed. Leaving the respondent to deduct and account for any tax and national insurance due, therefore, may result in error or delay. The obligation to pay any tax and national insurance due , however, rests with the claimant, and the respondent is to pay this sum gross. 2 of 5 Post – script : Case No. 6022970/2024[16]The claimant has another claim before the Tribunal against this respondent. It relates to deductions from his wages made, purportedly, for the purpose of paying over to NEST, his pension provider, his employee pension contributions.[17]That claim came before Employment Judge Johnson on 7 May 2025, when the respondent was represented by HR personnel. Whilst that was listed as a final hearing, it was converted to a preliminary hearing, and certain orders made.[18]In particular , the respondent was to provide documentary evidence of the payments that had been made to NEST, and the claimant was then to confirm to the Tribunal whether he withdrew these claims.[19]The claimant had, on 5 July 2025, sent to the Tribunal a copy of a document he had received, which he did not consider established that his pension contributions had been paid over to NEST. His covering email, however, did not, as required by para. 1.2 of the Orders made, actually state whether he was or was not withdrawing these claims, or why. The claimant appreciated this, and will rectify it. He may also make application for an order compelling the respondent to disclose documents evidencing the transmission of the pension contributions to NEST.[20]Nothing more could (nor indeed should, as it is not listed to be considered at this hearing) be done to advance those claims, which will proceed separately. Approved by: