Background
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently ruled on a case involving Alexandru Bucur, who brought claims against his employer, The Soho Sandwich Company Ltd, regarding unauthorised wage deductions and holiday pay entitlements. The case was heard by His Honour Judge James Tayler, with the judgment handed down on 21 March 2025.
Claims and Initial Tribunal Ruling
Bucur’s claims centred on alleged unauthorised deductions from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) and violations of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR). Specifically, the claims related to occasions when Bucur worked on bank holidays but was not compensated with additional pay or a day off in lieu, as stipulated in his employment contract.
The Employment Tribunal, presided over by Employment Judge Bartlett, initially dismissed these complaints. Bucur was awarded £1,929 for the company’s failure to provide a Statement of Initial Employment Terms, but this award was revoked upon reconsideration due to the absence of a successful underlying complaint.
Appeal Grounds
Bucur appealed the substantive decision on two grounds, both of which were deemed arguable at the sift stage. However, Judge Tayler found the grounds and arguments difficult to follow and noted that they lacked clarity regarding their arguability.
Double Pay and Leave in Lieu
One of the core issues was whether Bucur received double pay for working on bank holidays. His contract stipulated double pay and an alternative day off for such work. The Tribunal found that Bucur was paid his normal salary plus an additional £112.18 per bank holiday worked, which constituted double pay. Bucur did not challenge this finding on appeal.
Failure to Provide Holiday
Bucur also claimed that he was not granted a day off in lieu for bank holidays worked. However, the Tribunal ruled that this did not constitute an unlawful deduction from wages, as a day off in lieu does not meet the definition of wages under the ERA.
Holiday Carryover Dispute
Bucur contended that he was not allowed to carry over additional annual leave beyond his statutory entitlement. The Tribunal dismissed this claim, citing established case law that does not support the carryover of additional leave beyond regulation 13 WTR entitlements.
Appeal Dismissal
Judge Tayler dismissed Bucur’s appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal’s determination. The appeal was further weakened by Bucur’s failure to raise certain arguments at the original hearing, which could not be introduced at the appeal stage.
Conclusion
The EAT’s decision underscores the importance of clearly presenting and arguing all relevant points at the initial Tribunal hearing. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in employment law disputes, particularly concerning wage deductions and holiday entitlements.
Learn More
For more information on employment law, see BeCivil’s guide to UK Employment Law.
