Case 1802773/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C McIntyre v NMC Surfacing Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1802773/2019
- Decision date
- 7 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C McIntyre
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr C McIntyre, did not attend the hearing. NMC Surfacing Limited was represented by Miss J Gould, solicitor. The tribunal recorded that there was no evidence that the respondent had contacted ACAS in relation to the dispute, so the claimant could not rely on any exemption from the mandatory requirement to undertake early conciliation.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant had failed to comply with the mandatory early conciliation requirement and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s complaint. No findings were made on the substantive merits of the underlying wages complaint, and no remedy was awarded. The judgment was given orally at the hearing, with written reasons not provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal did not reach the merits of the complaint. It held that the claimant had failed to comply with the mandatory early conciliation requirement and that there was no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.