Case 1807044/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Rashid v Cordant Recruitment Limited HELD by CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1807044/2020
- Decision date
- 15 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Rashid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr B Rashid, worked for Cordant Recruitment Limited as a warehouse operative from 26 June 2020 until his resignation on 25 August 2020. He brought a claim for holiday pay and also referred to a claim for statutory sick pay. At the start of the hearing the tribunal told him it had no jurisdiction to hear the statutory sick pay claim and that this should be addressed to HMRC Statutory Payments Dispute Team.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant accepted his contract of employment stated that his holiday pay claim amounted to 35.1 hours. During the hearing the tribunal repeatedly asked for a breakdown of how that figure had been calculated, including after the claimant had the assistance of Mr Norman Afsar. The tribunal found that a calculation from the claimant was not forthcoming.
The respondent put its position to the claimant in detail, which resulted in a holiday pay figure of £208.90. The tribunal noted that the claimant was unable to challenge the respondent's calculation. After time to consider his position, the claimant said he was more than happy to withdraw the claim, and the tribunal dismissed the holiday pay claim on withdrawal by the claimant. No monetary award was made by the tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claimant withdrew the holiday pay claim at the hearing, and the tribunal dismissed it on that basis. The tribunal noted that the respondent had advanced a calculation that resulted in a holiday pay figure of £208.90, but no award was made. | 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.