Case 1800372/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Rawson v The Committee for the time being of the Wadsley Bridge Working Men’s Club through its Secretary Mrs J Barrett — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800372/2020
- Decision date
- 23 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little
- Panel members
- Dr C Langman, Mr L Priestley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Rawson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Rawson had no contractual entitlement to full sick pay. Because of that finding, being paid statutory sick pay only did not amount to an unauthorised deduction from wages.
The tribunal also found that Mr Rawson was not contractually entitled to a bonus payment in or about September 2019. Non-payment of that bonus was therefore not an unauthorised deduction from wages.
The complaint of discrimination arising from disability failed and was dismissed. The judgment records a unanimous decision by Employment Judge Little, sitting with Dr C Langman and Mr L Priestley at Sheffield by CVP on 9, 10 and 11 September 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had no contractual entitlement to full sick pay, so payment of statutory sick pay only did not amount to an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was not contractually entitled to receive a bonus payment in or about September 2019, so non-payment was not an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of discrimination arising from disability fails and that the claim is dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.