Case 1305776/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Fathi Joe Zaoui v The Bulls Head Inn (Inkberrow) Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1305776/2018
- Decision date
- 29 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Butler Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Fathi Joe Zaoui
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent from 21 October 2018 to 4 November 2018, a period of two weeks, on an annual salary of £30,000. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had received the contract before starting work and knew the terms on which he was being employed. It also found that the employment relationship broke down, with evidence that the claimant refused to cook in the way he was being asked to and that there was a conflict in the kitchen.
The wrongful dismissal claim failed. Although the contract did not give a notice period until after three months' service, the tribunal read that alongside s.86 ERA 1996 and found that the claimant had not yet reached one month's service, so he had no entitlement to notice at all. Dismissing him without notice was therefore not a breach of contract.
The tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim. It found that the claimant should have been paid £1,153.85 for the two weeks he worked, calculated on the basis of 2/52 of his annual salary, and that he had in fact received only £500. The respondent relied on paragraph 5(v) of the contract to justify accommodation deductions, but the tribunal held that term was too vague and uncertain to authorise deductions under s.13 ERA 1996, so the deduction of £653.85 was unlawful. By consent, the respondent was also ordered to pay £144.23 for 1.5 days' holiday pay.
The tribunal further declared that the respondent had failed to provide an itemized pay statement contrary to s.8 ERA 1996. A complaint about the claimant's P45 was dismissed because the tribunal held it fell outside its jurisdiction. The total sum ordered to be paid was £798.08.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had worked only two weeks, his contract did not give a notice entitlement until after three months, and the statutory minimum notice under s.86 ERA 1996 did not apply because he had not reached one month of service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant should have been paid £1,153.85 for two weeks' work at an annual salary of £30,000, but he received only £500. The contractual accommodation deduction clause in paragraph 5(v) was held too vague and uncertain to authorise the deduction. | Upheld | — | £654 |
| Holiday pay | By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay 1.5 days' holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £144 |
| Other | The tribunal declared that the respondent had not provided the claimant with an itemized pay statement, contrary to s.8 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal held that matters concerning the claimant's P45 fell outside its jurisdiction and dismissed that claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £798
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.8(1) ERA 1996
- s.12(3) ERA 1996
- Leisure Leagues UK Ltd v Maconnachie
- Cleeve Link Ltd v Bryla
- Polymer Products Ltd v Pover
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.