Mr G Turpie and others v Veolia ES (UK) Ltd: 3300471/2015
| Judgment Date | 05 August 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
| Citation | 3300471/2015 |
| Published date | 03 November 2017 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
Case Number: 3300471/2015, 3300480/2015,
3300485/2015, 3300483/2015,
3300478/2015, 3300484/2015,
3300481/2015, 3300479/2015,
3300475/2015, 3300487/2015
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants Respondent
1. Mr G Turpie 2. Mr S Johnson
3 Mr Panagiodis 4. Mr G Kowalowski
5. Mr S Hunter 6. Mr Panagiodis
7. Mr Harding 8. Mr C Kelynack
9. Mr Davies 10.Mr B Mahlangu
11. Mr D Dwight
v Veolia ES (UK) Limited
Heard at: Watford On: 5 to 8 June 2017
Before: Employment Judge Skehan
Appearances
For the Claimant: Ms M de Savorgnani (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr S Cheetham (Counsel)
JUDGMENT
1. Mr Turpie’s claim for unauthorised deduction from his wages in
respect of unpaid holiday pay pursuant to the Working Time
Regulations 1998 is successful, to the extent set out below, and the
Respondent is ordered to pay to Mr Turpie the agreed sum of
£1317.66 in addition to the sum of £1100 in respect of employment
tribunal fees within 14 days from the date of this judgment.
2. Mr Kowalowski’s claim for unauthorised deduction from his wages in
respect of unpaid holiday pay pursuant to the Working Time
Regulations 1998 is successful, to the extent set out below. This
claim has been listed for a remedy hearing at Watford Employment
Tribunal, Radius House, 51 Clarendon Road, Watford WD17 1HP
to start at 10.00am or so soon thereafter as possible on 12
September 2017.
Case Number: 3300471/2015, 3300480/2015,
3300485/2015, 3300483/2015,
3300478/2015, 3300484/2015,
3300481/2015, 3300479/2015,
3300475/2015, 3300487/2015
2
3. Mr Harding’s claim for unauthorised deduction from his wages in
respect of unpaid holiday pay pursuant to the Working Time
Regulations 1998 is struck out in accordance with Rule 37 of the ET
Rules and dismissed.
4. Mr Davies’ claim for unauthorised deduction from his wages in
respect of unpaid holiday pay pursuant to the Working Time
Regulations 1998 is struck out in accordance with Rule 37 of the ET
Rules and dismissed.
5. Mr Mahlangu’s claim for unauthorised deduction from his wages in
respect of unpaid holiday pay pursuant to the Working Time
Regulations 1998 is struck out in accordance with Rule 37 of the ET
Rules and dismissed.
6. The above decision and reasons below are binding on each of the
claims of Mr Panagiodis, Mr Johnson, Mr Hunter, Mr Dwight & Mr
Kelynack. In accordance with Rule 36 of the ET Rules, any of these
parties may, within 28 days after the date on which the employment
tribunal sent a copy of the decision to a party, apply in writing for an
order that the decision does not apply to, and is not binding on the
m.
These cases have been listed for final determination and for a
remedy hearing at Watford Employment Tribunal, Radius House,
51 Clarendon Road, Watford WD17 1HP to start at 10.00am or so
soon thereafter as possible on 12 September 2017.
REASONS
Preliminary Issues
1. The first preliminary issues to be determined prior to the start of this hearing was the
claimants’ application dated 24 May 2017 to amend the claims of Mr Turpie and Mr
Dwight to add the holidays they have taken since the submission of their claim forms
to date. The Respondent objected to this application. The application was allowed at
the commencement of the hearing and I do not set out the reasons other than to note
that no submissions were made or consideration given to whether the claims were
time barred where there had been a series of deductions and where more than 3
months had elapsed between those deductions as provided in Fulton & others V
Bear Scotland Limited UKEATS/0010/16/JW (“Bear Scotland”) and Lock v British
Gas Trading Ltd [2014] I.C.R.813 (“Lock”). The inadvertent consequence of allowing
the claimants’ amendment was highlighted following the determination of liability in
this matter but prior to the determination of remedy. Counsel for the claimant
submitted that the tribunal was bound by the case of Amey Services Limited &
Enterprise v Aldridge and others UKEATS/0007/16/JW (“Amey”) and prevented from
considering any time barring issues effectively dis-applying the three-month rule
established in Bear Scotland and Lock. The respondent applied for a reconsideration
of the order to extend time to allow the amendment to the claims of Mr Turpie and Mr
To continue reading
Request your trial