Case 2203119/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v MCS Cleaning Services Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203119/2019
- Decision date
- 20 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elliott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend the hearing, so the tribunal proceeded in absence under Rule 47 and relied on the claimant’s unchallenged evidence together with the respondent’s written email representations. It found that the claimant worked for the respondent’s cleaning company from 25 February 2019 to 31 March 2019.
On wages, the claimant said he was owed £203.58 for work on 27 and 28 February 2019 and for other missing hours shown on his clocking card, all calculated at £7.83 per hour. The tribunal accepted that evidence and awarded £203.58 as unpaid wages.
On holiday pay, the tribunal recorded the parties’ competing positions, including the respondent’s ET3 position that 2.33 days holiday pay amounting to £114.94 was due. The final judgment awarded £169.35 for holiday pay, bringing the total award to £372.93.
The tribunal made no award for the complaint about payslips/itemised pay statements because the claimant confirmed in correspondence that he had received the payslips and was disputing the calculations rather than their absence. It also accepted the respondent’s explanation on pension contributions, namely that contributions were only made after 92 days and that the claimant had not signed or seen pension documentation.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment awarded holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The reasons record the claimant’s own calculation as £169.75, but the order awarded £169.35. | Upheld | — | £169 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that £203.58 was unpaid for hours worked in February 2019. | Upheld | — | £204 |
| Other | Complaint that the respondent had failed to provide payslips/itemised pay statements failed because the claimant confirmed he had the payslips and was disputing the calculations, not their non-receipt; the tribunal made no award. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal also dealt with a pension contributions issue and accepted the respondent’s explanation that contributions were only made after 92 days and that the claimant had not signed or seen pension documentation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £373
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 13(1) of the ERA
- Section 8 of the ERA
- Regulations 13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.