Case 2303324/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Ardito v The Agile Rabbit Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303324/2022
- Decision date
- 20 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Perry Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Ardito
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for The Agile Rabbit Limited as general manager from 25 October 2021. The tribunal found that the parties' written contract provided for salary, quarterly bonus and overtime at the claimant's normal rate, but made no mention of tronc or service charge. It accepted that the claimant became tronc master in January 2022 after Mr Polizzotto left, and that the respondent's restaurant operated a card-only service-charge system with tronc distributed through payroll. The tribunal also accepted the clocking-in records, which showed 1,935 hours worked between 25 October 2021 and 17 May 2022.
On the wage claims, the tribunal held that the May 2022 salary and tronc shown on the payslip, the June 2022 salary, and the January and April 2022 bonuses were all unlawfully withheld. It rejected the respondent's argument that it had a contractual right to deduct the sums because the claimant had paid tronc to himself; the tribunal found there was no documentation showing the tronc system was restricted in the way the respondent alleged, and that the January to April tronc payments had effectively been approved through payroll. The tribunal also found that the May payslip declared tronc as payable, so the May tronc element was properly payable once declared.
The June 2022 tronc claim failed. The tribunal held that this remained an undeclared discretionary payment and therefore did not constitute wages for the purposes of section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996. For overtime, the tribunal found that the claimant was effectively required to work the hours shown by the clocking system, that his contractual hours over the period were 1,450, and that the excess 485 hours should have been paid at his normal rate. It calculated the overtime loss at £6,547.50 gross.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay gross sums of £4,416.66 for the May 2022 salary and tronc claim, £2,961.42 for June 2022 salary, £2,000 for the unpaid bonus claim, and £6,547.50 for overtime. It also noted that the claimant may be liable to tax on some of the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for deduction from wages in respect of salary and tronc in May 2022 succeeded. The tribunal held that the May payslip had declared the tronc amount as payable, so non-payment was an unlawful deduction. | Upheld | — | £4,417 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for deduction from wages in respect of salary in June 2022 succeeded because the wages were not paid and the respondent had no contractual basis to withhold them. | Upheld | — | £2,961 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for tronc due in June 2022 was dismissed. The tribunal found this remained an undeclared discretionary payment and therefore did not amount to wages for the purposes of the unlawful deduction claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for bonus payments due in January and April 2022 succeeded. The tribunal rejected the respondent's attempt to say the payments were not made and treated the non-payment as a series of deductions. | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The overtime claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted the clocking-in evidence showing 1,935 hours worked between 25 October 2021 and 17 May 2022, found 485 hours of overtime, and calculated the unpaid sum at the claimant's normal rate. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,926
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 14 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church
- Farrell Matthews and Weir v Hansen
- Saavedra v Aceground Ltd
- Nerva v RL &G Ltd
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.