Case 1800679/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Krzysztof Rak v Fabicon Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800679/2022
- Decision date
- 30 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Elliott Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Krzysztof Rak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Rak and Fabicon Limited had an oral arrangement for ad hoc labouring work in October and November 2021. Mr Rak was to be paid £70 per day for an 8-hour day, plus a £5 per day travel allowance, in arrears on Fridays. He worked under the direction of the respondent's staff, had to provide the work personally, could not send a substitute, and was not in business on his own account. The tribunal held that he was a worker engaged by Fabicon Limited under an express oral contract, although it doubted that the mutuality of obligation was strong enough to make him an employee.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's account that Mr Rak had only been engaged personally to valet a private car. It preferred Mr Rak's evidence and the contemporaneous text messages, and found that the working relationship ended with immediate effect on 12 November 2021 after a dispute about paperwork and registration. The tribunal held that Mr Rak was owed wages for 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 November 2021 and that there had been no written agreement authorising any deduction from wages. It also held that the £5 per day travel allowance was not part of wages for the purposes of the unauthorised deduction claim.
On that basis, the tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered Fabicon Limited to pay £350 gross, subject to deductions for tax and employee national insurance contributions. It also found that the respondent had failed to provide written employment particulars. Under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, it awarded two weeks' pay rather than four weeks' pay, taking into account the short length of the relationship and the small size of the respondent.
In calculating the s.38 award, the tribunal found that a week's gross pay was £381.40. That figure comprised £356.40 for the basic day rate, adjusted to the applicable national living wage rate of £8.91 per hour for an 8-hour day over five days, plus £25 for the travel allowance. Two weeks' pay came to £762.80.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction of five days' pay for 8 to 12 November 2021 at £70 per day. The £5 per day travel allowance was excluded from wages for this claim. The gross sum ordered was subject to tax and employee national insurance deductions. | Upheld | — | £350 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars was found under s.38 Employment Act 2002. The tribunal awarded two weeks' pay rather than four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £763 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,113
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions
- Uber and others v Aslam and others
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith
- Hall (Inspector of Taxes) v Lorimer
- Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Ltd v Baird and others
- Agarwal v Cardiff University and another
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.221 to 229 Employment Rights Act 1996
- S&U Stores Limited v Wilkes
- Paggetti v Cobb
- regulation 10 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015
- Barrie v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
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.