Case 1305857/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C O’Connor v J Rosch Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1305857/2020
- Decision date
- 11 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wilkinson Representation
- Venue
- The Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C O’Connor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Wilkinson, sitting remotely at The Midlands West Employment Tribunal on 12 August 2021, entered judgment for Mr C O’Connor for unpaid but accrued holiday pay in the sum of £880.65 under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The judgment records that the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr B Chauhan, Operations Manager.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claim for 'hardship'. It also recorded that the claimant was no longer pursuing his claims for an unpaid tax rebate and for an unauthorised deduction in wages, and those claims therefore stood dismissed.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No further findings or remedy breakdown are set out in the written judgment beyond the single holiday pay award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Judgment entered for unpaid but accrued holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998 in the sum of £880.65. | Upheld | — | £881 |
| Other | The claimant's claim for 'hardship' was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant was no longer pursuing his claim in respect of an unpaid tax rebate, and that claim stood dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant was no longer pursuing his claim in respect of an unauthorised deduction in wages, and that claim stood dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £881
- 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.