Case 1805310/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person Translator: Ms M Castello For the v Valley Products Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805310/2022
- Decision date
- 18 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person Translator: Ms M Castello For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal proceeded in the respondent's absence after a postponement application had been refused and the respondent emailed on the morning of the hearing to say no representative would attend. The tribunal heard affirmed evidence from each claimant, with translation assistance.
The tribunal found that Miss Ramos Garay and Miss Giustizieri started work on 4 July 2022, and Mrs Luz Garay started work on 11 July 2022. They had agreed to work 43 hours per week at annual salaries of £40,000 for Miss Ramos Garay and £29,000 for each of the other two claimants. The tribunal accepted the claimants' evidence where the respondent's assertions were not supported by attendance at the hearing.
The tribunal concluded that wages were properly payable to the first two claimants from 4 July to 5 August 2022 and to Mrs Luz Garay from 11 July to 5 August 2022. It awarded £3,616.44 to Miss Ramos Garay, £2,621.92 to Miss Giustizieri, and £2,065.75 to Mrs Luz Garay, less tax and national insurance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld claims for unauthorised deduction of wages under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996. Awards were stated separately for the three claimants and are payable less tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £8,304 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,304
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.14(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.