Case 1402449/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jason John Clark v Shower Glass Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402449/2021
- Decision date
- 15 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Millard Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jason John Clark
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Shower Glass Ltd had made an unlawful deduction from Mr Jason John Clark’s wages. Mr Clark agreed in evidence that the respondent’s calculation of his total hours worked, 756.75 hours, was correct and that his gross salary was correct. He had also agreed in writing by Facebook Messenger to deductions of £65 on 25 February 2021, £65 on 29 March 2021, and £175 on 5 March 2021 for replacement glass.
The tribunal found that two other deductions were not agreed in writing and were not permitted by the contract of employment: a deduction of £59.99 for a replacement rear light, rounded in the pay calculation to £58.37, and a deduction of £49 for a replacement mirror. Those two deductions totalled £107.37, and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay that gross sum to the claimant. The reasons also record that the Employment Tribunal could not consider a claim for personal injury alleged to have been caused in a workplace incident.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found two deductions were not agreed in writing and were not authorised by the contract of employment: £58.37 for a replacement rear light and £49 for a replacement mirror. It noted that the claimant had agreed in writing to three other deductions, including two £65 penalty charge notices and £175 for replacement glass. | Upheld | — | £107 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £107
- 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.