Case 1401304/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Slavin v Alumdisplay Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401304/2021
- Decision date
- 27 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Slavin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 6 April 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Cadney Date determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that Mr Slavin had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,011.20. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,995.84.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to provide written particulars of employment pursuant to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered payment of £1,395.20, described in the judgment as 4 weeks at £348.80. The extracted total monetary award is £7,402.24.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £4,011 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,996 |
| Other | Failure to provide written particulars of employment pursuant to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the award was stated as 4 weeks at £348.80. | Upheld | — | £1,395 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,402
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.