Case 2300280/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Glogowski v Asda Stores Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300280/2019
- Decision date
- 14 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Glogowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered an application to strike out Mr Glogowski's claim for unauthorised deduction of wages. The claim related to 7 weeks' sick pay, which could not be included in an earlier tribunal claim in which he had succeeded.
The respondent submitted that the sick pay was discretionary and therefore did not fall within the definition of "wages" under s.27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that under the respondent's policy, a warning allowed sickness benefit to be withheld for the duration of the warning at the respondent's discretion.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's submissions, finding that the sickness payments were not "properly payable" and did not amount to wages under s.27. It concluded that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success and struck it out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned 7 weeks' sick pay and was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.27
- Farrell Matthews & Weir v Hansen [2005] IRLR 160
- no reasonable prospects of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.