Case 1800621/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Baskakovs v Staffline Recruitment Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1800621/2021
- Decision date
- 10 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Baskakovs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant had brought claims for unauthorised deduction from wages, including furlough pay, contractual sick pay, and wages after being sent home under the coronavirus protocol; statutory redundancy payment; and discrimination because of age, disability, race, and religion or belief.
Following a preliminary hearing on 5 November 2021, the claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £50. The order was sent to him on 18 November 2021. The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to pay the deposit, and the listed claims were therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as unauthorised deduction from wages, including furlough pay, contractual sick pay, and payment of wages after the claimant was sent home under the coronavirus protocol. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment describes this as a claim for statutory redundancy payment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.