Case 1300184/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Hector Luis Cruz Gonzalez v Conigital Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1300184/2024
- Decision date
- 12 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bennett Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Hector Luis Cruz Gonzalez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time and confirmed that it did not contest the claim. The tribunal therefore made a decision on the papers before Employment Judge Bennett Case.
The tribunal held that the complaint of (constructive) unfair dismissal was well founded. It awarded a basic award of 1286 gross and a compensatory award of 7276.92.
It also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of 8811.24 net unpaid wages and 1122.43 in unpaid pension contributions. The total award was 18496.59.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of (constructive) unfair dismissal well founded and awarded a basic award of 1286 and a compensatory award of 7276.92. | Upheld | — | £8,563 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award covered unauthorised deductions from wages for the period August 2023 to January 2024, including 8811.24 net unpaid wages and 1122.43 unpaid pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £9,934 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,497
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,286
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,277
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.