Case 2301749/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr A Rassel (2) Mr D Radu v Boiler & Company UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301749/2023
- Decision date
- 9 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Curtis Claimants
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr A Rassel (2) Mr D Radu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing proceeded in the absence of the Respondent under rule 47, Employment Judge Curtis sitting alone at London South ET by CVP on 8 November 2023. The Respondent's name was amended to Boiler & Company UK Limited. The unfair dismissal complaints brought by both Claimants were not well founded and were dismissed because the Claimants did not have sufficient length of service at the time they were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that when proceedings were begun the Respondent was in breach of its duty to provide either Claimant with a written statement of employment particulars under s.1 ERA 1996, and set out the particulars that ought to have been included for each Claimant (both employed as kitchen porters at 5 Canvey Street, London SE1 9AN, at £12 per hour). The Tribunal also found that the Respondent had failed to give the First Claimant written itemised pay statements under s.8 ERA 1996 between 2 December 2022 and 9 April 2023, and the Second Claimant between 25 March 2023 and 7 April 2023.
The Second Claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded and the Respondent was ordered to pay him £480, being the gross sum deducted. Under s.38 Employment Act 2002 the Tribunal found there were no exceptional circumstances making a two-weeks' gross pay award unjust or inequitable, and that a four-weeks' award was not just and equitable, ordering the Respondent to pay the Second Claimant a further £480. No s.38 award was made for the First Claimant as he did not succeed with any claim under Schedule 5.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Both Claimants' unfair dismissal complaints dismissed as they did not have sufficient length of service at the time of dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second Claimant (Mr Radu) only. Respondent ordered to pay £480 (gross sum deducted). First Claimant did not succeed on this claim. | Upheld | — | £480 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to provide written statement of employment particulars (s.1 ERA 1996). Tribunal made declarations as to the particulars for both Claimants and, under s.38 Employment Act 2002, awarded the Second Claimant £480 (two weeks' gross pay). No s.38 award for the First Claimant as he did not succeed on any Schedule 5 claim. Tribunal also found the Respondent had failed to provide written itemised pay statements (s.8 ERA 1996) to both Claimants during stated periods, with no monetary award attached. | Upheld | — | £480 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £960
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.1(4) ERA 1996
- section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- Schedule 5 Employment Act 2002
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.