Case 1805445/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Olongo (lay representative) For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805445/2020
- Decision date
- 25 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr K Lannaman, Ms S Scott
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Olongo (lay representative) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Leeds before Employment Judge Davies with Mr K Lannaman and Ms S Scott, heard the case on 18, 19 and 20 May 2021. The claimant was represented by Mr Olongo and the respondent by Ms J Wilson-Theaker. The judgment records that the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages relating to attendance at the disciplinary hearing was well-founded.
For that successful wages complaint, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £17.44. No separate breakdown of the award is given in the judgment.
The tribunal dismissed the remaining complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages, unfair dismissal and race discrimination as not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 | The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages relating to attendance at the disciplinary hearing succeeded. | Upheld | — | £17 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The remaining complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17
- 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.
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.