Case 2200934/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Romeo’s Bakery Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200934/2019
- Decision date
- 15 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Romeo's Bakery Ltd as a manager under a contract dated 28 July 2018 providing for a gross annual salary of £25,000 and one week's notice after the first month. The respondent did not present a response and did not attend at the scheduled time for the hearing, although a director later appeared and said he had understood the case had settled; the claimant denied any compromise and referred to an ACAS email saying no agreement had been reached.
The tribunal found that the claimant worked 97 days and was dismissed on 18 November 2018 without the week's notice to which she was entitled. Using the Employment Tribunal Remedies Handbook figure for net pay on a £25,000 gross salary, the tribunal calculated that pay for the period worked plus seven days' notice was £7,123.29 gross, while the claimant had received £4,188. The resulting shortfall was £2,935.29 gross.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,935.29 gross. It stated that the respondent could satisfy the judgment in part by producing a P45 showing sums paid to HMRC for income tax and national insurance on the claimant's behalf.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award was for unpaid contractual pay for the period worked plus one week's notice. The judgment frames the sum as unpaid wages owing from the employment and states the respondent could satisfy it in part by producing a P45 showing tax and national insurance paid to HMRC. | Upheld | — | £2,935 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,935
- 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.