Case 1402966/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v M r R Grigore, owner — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402966/2020
- Decision date
- 14 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss A Chiriac, brought claims against AIR Grill House Ltd. The tribunal, sitting by video conference at Southampton before Employment Judge Rayner on 18 December 2020, found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amount of the deduction was found to be £150.00, and the tribunal ordered payment of that sum to the claimant.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of the main terms and conditions of employment contrary to section 39 of the Employment Act 2002. For that failure, the tribunal awarded compensation of two weeks' wages, recorded as £520.00. The total sum payable by the respondent to the claimant was therefore £670.00.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages contrary to section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 in the sum of £150.00. | Upheld | — | £150 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of the main terms and conditions of employment contrary to section 39 Employment Act 2002 and awarded compensation of two weeks' wages, said to be £520.00. | Upheld | — | £520 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £670
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 39 Employment Act 2002
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.