Abbeyfield Stewartry Society
Case Summary
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claims by Mrs M Borowska and Mr P Borowski against Abbeyfield Stewartry Society, finding their claims not well-founded.
Key Issues
- •unlawful deductions from wages in respect of 'offset accommodation' deducted from her wages when she was on nightshift, which she argued was not permitted by her contract or set out in her payslip
- •hours worked during the night between 10.30 pm and 7.30 am when she alleges that she was not paid the national minimum wage (the claimant confirmed that point 6 was essentially a restatement of this point)
- •underpaid holiday pay, calculated over 12 weeks rather than 52
- •breach of contract through failure to offer minimum guaranteed contractual hours after lodging grievance
- •payment for 15 minutes for each shift when engaged in handover
Claim Types
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
the Employment Tribunal on 12 March 2025 claiming unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract. The two claims were combi
letter dated 10 April 2024. 45.It was also agreed, as a reasonable adjustment, that “wherever possible I will allocate you extra hous
and 4100378/2025Page18 108.The claimants relied on the Working Time Regulations 1998, and in particular section 2 which defines working
Decision Text
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No:4100377/2025 and 4100378/2025 Held inGlasgowon26 and 27 August 2025 Employment JudgeM Robison Mrs M BorowskaFirstClaimant In Person Mr P BorowskiSecond Claimant Represented by: Mrs M Borowska- First Claimant Abbeyfield Stewartry SocietyRespondent Represented by: Ms A Wright- Tribunal Advocate JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimants’ claims are not well- founded and therefore are dismissed. REASONS Introduction 1.The claimants each lodged separate claims in the Employment Tribunal on 12 March 2025 claiming unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract. The two claims were combined by case management order dated 19 May 2025. 2.The first claimant was employed as a house assistant and home carer for the respondent until she resigned on 13 May 2025. The second claimant is still employed by the respondent as a house assistant. 3.A final hearing in this case was listed to take place on 26 and 27 August 2025. 4100377/2025 and 4100378/2025Page2 Interpreter and representation 4.Before the hearing commenced, it became apparent that a Polish interpreter had not been booked, although the Tribunal had confirmed that one would be provided (by letter dated 2 May 2025). 5.At the start of the hearing, I suggested that it would be possible to postpone the hearing to secure the services of a Polish interpreter for a relisted hearing. After some discussion the claimants agreed that they would be happy to proceed without an interpreter. However it was agreed that, if it was possible to get an interpreter for the second day, that would be helpful. 6.At the start of the hearing both claimants made contributions and I explained that one only should represent both which meant only one doing the speaking. The first claimant elected to undertake the role of representative and to liaise with the second claimant during the hearing. Application for strike out–h...
Employer
Case Details
- Case Number
- 4100377/2025
- Decision Date
- 23/10/2025
- Published
- 13/01/2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- M Robison