Case 1804628/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Stephens v Rapid Response Telecoms Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804628/2023
- Decision date
- 3 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Stephens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Stephens worked for Rapid Response Telecoms Ltd from 1 August 2022 to 15 May 2023 as a senior fibre engineer. He resigned on 2 May 2023, was put on gardening leave during his notice period, and brought claims for notice pay, pay for work done on 1 May 2023, underpaid wages from November 2022, on-call payments, and untaken holiday pay. The tribunal treated the matters as claims for unauthorised deductions from wages under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with holiday pay also considered under the Working Time Regulations 1998 in the alternative.
The tribunal upheld the claims for notice pay, 1 May 2023 pay, van damage deduction, and holiday pay. It found that the claimant was entitled to 10 working days' notice pay at £130.80 per day, that he had worked on 1 May 2023 and should have been paid £130.80 for that day, and that the deduction of £228.90 from his final pay for van damage was not authorised because the respondent had not carried out a reasonable investigation or reached a reasonable conclusion that he was responsible or negligent. It also found that eight days of untaken contractual holiday were due on termination, producing an award of £1,040.
The on-call payments claim was dismissed because the tribunal found that, looking at the period as a whole, the claimant had been paid all that he should have been paid and there was no net underpayment. The November 2022 wages claim was also dismissed on time grounds: the tribunal found that £738.60 was properly payable but held that the deduction was a discrete one, not part of a series, and that it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim within the three-month time limit. The total gross award was £2,707.70, and the tribunal stated that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Notice pay for the working days in the notice period from 2 to 10 May 2023; the claimant was on gardening leave and was not paid on the 31 May 2023 pay date. | Upheld | — | £1,308 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Pay for work done on 1 May 2023; the tribunal found the claimant worked that day and the respondent did not make the contractual estimate when no timesheet had been submitted. | Upheld | — | £131 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Deduction of £228.90 from the 31 May 2023 final pay for van damage was unauthorised because the contractual process requiring a reasonable investigation and a reasonable conclusion on liability was not followed. | Upheld | — | £229 |
| Holiday pay | Eight days of untaken contractual holiday were found due on termination after taking account of accrued leave and two days carried forward. | Upheld | — | £1,040 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | On-call payments claim failed because, taken over the whole period, the tribunal found the claimant had been paid all that he should have been paid and there was no net underpayment. | Dismissed |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,708
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- three months plus early conciliation
- not reasonably practicable
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.