Case 1804655/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Ion v Citu Manufacturing Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804655/2020
- Decision date
- 14 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- W Roberts, P Northam
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr I Ion
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal declared that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages/breach of contract concerning payment for accrued holiday in lieu of weekend overtime worked but untaken at termination was well-founded. The First Respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the agreed sum of GBP 492.28 for the balance of holiday pay owed.
All other claims against either respondent were dismissed. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes the successful complaint as unauthorised deductions from wages/breach of contract in respect of accrued holiday in lieu of weekend overtime, and orders payment for the balance of holiday pay owed. | Upheld | — | £492 |
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment states that all other claims against either respondent are dismissed, but gives no written reasons. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment states that all other claims against either respondent are dismissed, but gives no written reasons. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The written judgment states that all other claims against either respondent are dismissed, but gives no written reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment states that all other claims against either respondent are dismissed, but gives no written reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £492
- across all upheld claims
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.