Case 2205054/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Julio Major, union representative For the v Mr Roman Scuplak, consultant Interpreter: Ms Tatiana Crespo Hale — 2021
- Case reference
- 2205054/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Julio Major, union representative For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages in relation to alleged unpaid hours for taking out and placing garbage containers between 1 July 2019 and 7 May 2021. The tribunal recorded that he had started work as a cleaner on 1 September 2017, that he was paid £9.50 per hour during 2019 to 2021, and that he later complained internally about alleged underpayment after returning from sickness absence in November 2022.
The tribunal held that the claim was out of time under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It accepted that the claimant did not become aware of the alleged extra payment to the person covering his work until November 2022, but concluded that from then onwards it was reasonably practicable to present a claim while also pursuing the respondent's internal process. It also found that, even if that were wrong, the claimant could have presented the claim after receiving the outcome letter of 20 January 2023 or after the further letter of 31 March 2023, and that the additional delay before the ET1 was lodged on 13 April 2023 was unexplained.
In the alternative, the tribunal said the claim would have failed on the merits. It was not satisfied that there had been an agreement that the claimant should be paid extra for taking out the bins during the claimed period, or that he had in fact worked unpaid hours for which he was not paid. The tribunal noted the absence of cogent evidence challenging payslips or showing unpaid work, and found it most likely on the balance of probabilities that a Peabody caretaker was doing the work instead. The judgment therefore dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim and recorded no award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal found it was not presented within such further period as was reasonable. In the alternative, the tribunal said the claim would have failed on the merits because it was not satisfied that the claimant was contractually entitled to additional pay for taking out the bins between 1 July 2019 and 7 May 2021, or that he had worked unpaid hours at that time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority [1982] ICR 200
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.