Case 1600309/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Rodney Clissold v Uneek Clothing Company Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600309/2021
- Decision date
- 27 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Webb Representation
- Venue
- by video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Rodney Clissold
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Rodney Clissold brought claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and for unpaid accrued holiday pay against Uneek Clothing Company Limited. The tribunal dismissed the unauthorised deduction from wages claim, finding that the respondent had not made an unauthorised deduction and that the complaint was not well founded.
The tribunal upheld the holiday pay complaint under regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It found that the respondent had not paid the full amount due to the claimant for accrued holiday at the end of his contract.
In calculating the holiday entitlement, the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to £1,281.12 in total, made up of 16 days' Regulation 13 leave at £66.32 per day (£1,061.12) and 4 days' Regulation 13A/contractual leave at £55 per day (£220). The tribunal recorded that the respondent had already paid £742.50 on or around 15 November 2020 and £137.50 on 14 May 2021, and ordered the respondent to pay the balance of £538.62.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent did not make an unauthorised deduction from wages and said that claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had not paid the full amount due for accrued holiday at the end of the contract, under regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £539 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £539
- 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.