Case 1301298/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Dua-Boateng v Elliot Commercial Cleaning Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1301298/2019
- Decision date
- 13 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Dua-Boateng
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham on 13 September 2019, Employment Judge Flood sitting alone heard the claim. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend or send representation.
The claimant’s direct race discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment does not set out any substantive liability findings on that claim beyond recording the withdrawal and dismissal.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s wages claim and found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages. Those deductions comprised £70 for 3 hours worked in November 2018 and 4 hours worked in December 2018, £500 for 10 days of untaken accrued holiday, and £1,000 for 4 weeks’ notice pay.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,570 gross, with the claimant responsible for any income tax and National Insurance contributions due on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states: 'The claimant’s claim for direct race discrimination is dismissed upon withdrawal.' | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions covering unpaid wages for 3 hours worked in November 2018 and 4 hours worked in December 2018 (£70), unpaid accrued but untaken holiday for 10 days (£500), and unpaid notice pay for 4 weeks (£1,000). | Upheld | — | £1,570 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,570
- across all upheld claims
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.