Case 2301701/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Danu Radu & Mr A K M Rassal v Boiler & Company UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301701/2023
- Decision date
- 13 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Danu Radu & Mr A K M Rassal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Danu Radu and Mr A K M Rassal brought claims against Boiler & Company Ltd arising out of work at a cocktail bar/restaurant trading as Boiler & Co in London. The respondent did not attend or present a response. The tribunal removed Mr Carr as a respondent, found Boiler & Company Ltd to be the correct respondent, and was satisfied that service had been effected. On the evidence of the claimants, the tribunal found that they were employees working solely as kitchen staff, not self-employed.
For Mr Radu, the tribunal found that he worked from 25 March 2023 to 4 April 2023 as a kitchen porter, was paid at £12 gross per hour, worked 32 hours in total, and was dismissed without warning on 4 April 2023. For Mr Rassal, the tribunal found that he worked from 16 December 2022 to 4 April 2023 as a kitchen porter and part-time sous chef, was paid £12 gross per hour, and was dismissed without warning on the same date. In both cases, the tribunal found that wages had not been paid, no notice had been given, no written contract had been provided, and no itemised pay statements had been supplied.
The tribunal treated the unpaid wages and accrued holiday as complaints under s.13 ERA 1996 and found them well-founded. It treated the notice claims as damages for breach of contract under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994, finding Mr Radu entitled to one week of reasonable notice and Mr Rassal entitled to one week of statutory minimum notice under s.86 ERA 1996. It also concluded, after the hearing, that both claimants were entitled to compensation under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment, and awarded each claimant four weeks' gross pay for that failure. The tribunal noted that it was disproportionate to calculate any separate award for unnotified deductions under s.11 ERA 1996. The total awards were £1,616.40 for Mr Radu and £4,009.20 for Mr Rassal, making a combined total of £5,625.60.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded unpaid wages and holiday pay to both claimants: Mr Radu (£384 unpaid wages plus £32.40 accrued holiday) and Mr Rassal (£1,200 unpaid wages plus £709.20 accrued holiday), treated as unauthorised deductions from wages under s.13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,326 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal awarded notice pay for breach of contract to both claimants: Mr Radu (£240) and Mr Rassal (£420), arising from failure to give notice of dismissal. | Upheld | — | £660 |
| Other | Compensation under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment: Mr Radu (£960) and Mr Rassal (£1,680). | Upheld | — | £2,640 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,626
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.8 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.11 ERA 1996
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.