Case 1306766/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Nunes, Duarte and Da Costa Dias v Neo Granite Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1306766/2020
- Decision date
- 26 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nunes, Duarte and Da Costa Dias
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimants' unlawful deduction from wages claims. It concluded that the in-time unauthorised deductions claims did not succeed because of contractual provisions, express or implied, requiring additional hours necessary for the proper performance of duties without additional remuneration.
The notice pay claims by the first and second claimants were dismissed, and the first claimant's holiday pay claim also did not succeed. The tribunal found that the second and third claimants had not received written statements of employment particulars before proceedings began and awarded each the minimum award of two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
The respondent's costs application in respect of the adjourned hearing was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal dismissed the claimants' unlawful deduction from wages claims, including overtime and furlough or post-termination wage issues. The supplied PDF text is truncated in the middle, but the judgment result and conclusions state the outcome. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes these as notice pay claims by the first and second claimants and dismisses them. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The first claimant's holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The second and third claimants succeeded under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written statements of employment particulars. Each was awarded two weeks' pay, but no monetary amount is stated in the supplied text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regulations 13 and 13A
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regulation 14
- section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- Rule 76(2) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013
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.