Mr Bell v Securitas Security Services (UK) Ltd: 2502013/2020
| Judgment Date | 01 February 2022 |
| Citation | 2502013/2020 |
| Date | 01 February 2022 |
| Published date | 02 March 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Working Time Regulations |
Case Number: 2502013/2020
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr Bell
Respondent: Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited
Heard at: Newcastle CFCTC (by CVP) On: 15 November 2021
Before: Employment Judge Newburn
Appearances
For the Claimant: Mr Bell, in person
For the Respondent: Ms Bann (Solicitor)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s annual leave should be calculated in accordance with Section 221(2)
of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
REASONS
Introduction
1. This is a claim regarding holiday pay brought by 6 employees working for the
Respondent. Mr Bell is the designated lead Claimant. The Claimants all bring
claims of unlawful deduction from wages relating to the calculation of their annual
leave. The Claimants maintain that the Respondent has changed the basis upon
which annual leave payments are calculated and this has resulted in them being
(and continuing to be) underpaid.
2. The Respondent claims that it has always calculated each of the Claimants’
annual leave payments in accordance with section 221(3) of the Employment
Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’) which it asserts is the correct method of calculation. This
method of calculation involves determining an employee’s average pay across a
Case Number: 2502013/2020
reference period. Until 6 April 2020, this reference period was 12 weeks;
however, the Employment Rights (Employment Particulars and Paid Annual
Leave) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, changed the reference period to 52
weeks, and the Respondent confirms that it changed the reference period in line
with that legislation.
3. The Claimants claim that this is not the correct method of calculating their annual
leave.
Issues
4. It had been decided at an earlier case management hearing that remedy was not
within the scope of the current hearing and was agreed that the issue to be
resolved at this hearing would be determining the basis upon which the Claimant
is entitled to have his holiday pay calculated. I discussed this with the parties at
the start of the hearing and the list of issues for the hearing was agreed as
follows:
4.1. How should the Claimant’s annual leave pay be calculated:
4.1.1. Should it be calculated in accordance with a contractual term as
asserted by the Claimant; if not,
4.1.2. Should annual leave pay be calculated under Section 221(2) ERA
or under section 221(3) ERA.
The hearing
5. The hearing took place on Cloud Video Platform (CVP). The lead Claimant, Mr
Bell attended at the hearing and confirmed that the other Claimants would not be
attending at the hearing to give evidence. A diary error meant the Respondent’s
representative had not initially attended the hearing. However, the Respondent’s
representative was contacted and did attend shortly thereafter. She confirmed
that she had prepared for the hearing in advance and made arrangements so
that she could attend to represent the Respondent on the day, however the
Respondent’s witness Mr Austin was not available to attend the hearing.
6. I had an agreed hearing bundle running to 289 pages as well as a witness
statement bundle, with witness statements from each of the 6 Claimants as well
as further witness statements from 3 other employees working for the
To continue reading
Request your trial