Case 2204444/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Alexandrina Bodrug v ABC of Taste Limited Heard: Via by CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204444/2021
- Decision date
- 10 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alexandrina Bodrug
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAlexandrina Bodrug's claims against ABC of Taste Limited were heard via CVP on 9 and 10 January 2022 before Employment Judge Codd. The tribunal found that she had been subjected to an unlawful deduction of wages for unpaid holiday and notice pay. The judgment recorded a gross figure of £1,070.55, with the respondent responsible for ensuring tax and national insurance were paid and a net amount of £912.60 payable to the claimant within 28 days.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed for an automatically unfair reason. It ordered the respondent to pay a basic and compensatory award of £3,724.50 within 28 days. The written order stated that the total net amount payable was £4,637.10, made up of £912.60 and £3,724.50.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment described unpaid holiday and notice pay as an unlawful deduction of wages. It recorded a gross figure of £1,070.55 and a net amount payable of £912.60. | Upheld | — | £913 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed for an automatically unfair reason. The award was stated as a combined basic and compensatory award of £3,724.50 without apportionment. | Upheld | — | £3,725 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,637
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,725
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.