Case 2304927/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Tench v For the Road Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304927/2021
- Decision date
- 25 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swaffer Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Tench
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for For the Road Limited as a technician from 9 October 2020 until dismissal on 29 June 2021. His contract was for 42 hours a week, annual gross pay of £24,000, 28 days' paid leave, and one month's notice after probation. The tribunal said the case arose from the deterioration of a close working and personal relationship between the claimant, Ms Melani and Mr Chmeit.
On the payslip issue, the tribunal found that hard-copy payslips were handed out monthly and rejected the s.8/s.12 ERA declaration. It upheld the unlawful deduction claim for two weeks' work in hand, and a further unlawful deduction claim for loans, cars and advances; it dismissed the claim about fines/enforcement because those deductions were made pursuant to an attachment of earnings order dated 15 April 2021. It also found that, by virtue of the unlawful deductions, the claimant had received less than the national minimum wage.
On the contract claims, the tribunal found that the respondent underpaid the claimant in several months because the full net amounts shown on the payslips were not transferred and there was no evidence of cash top-ups. It also found that one month's notice pay was due and unpaid. The claim that the claimant had not been placed on furlough failed because the tribunal found he was on flexi-furlough from November 2020. Holiday pay succeeded because he took no holiday and the Working Time (Coronavirus)(Amendment) Regulations 2020 allowed carry-over; the tribunal awarded £1,754.40 net for 24 days' accrued leave. The 'Other losses' heading was said to be outside jurisdiction, and the employer's counterclaim for alleged damage, premises use, parking, accommodation/food, tyres and solicitors' costs was dismissed. The written total-award paragraph is internally inconsistent on the gross subtotal, but the itemised awards total £4,670.28 gross plus £6,366.74 net.
Claims and outcomes
11 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a declaration under s.12(3) ERA 1996 that payslips were not provided in accordance with s.8(1) ERA 1996; tribunal found monthly hard-copy payslips were given and made no declaration. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Two weeks' work in hand; respondent accepted this sum was owed and that it had not been paid. | Upheld | — | £970 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for breach of contract on the basis that the claimant had allegedly been placed on furlough; tribunal found he was on flexi-furlough from November 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay for 24 days accrued but untaken leave; tribunal found the claimant took no holiday and relied on the Working Time (Coronavirus)(Amendment) Regulations 2020 to permit carry-over. | Upheld | — | £1,754 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deductions for loans, cars and advances; tribunal found there was no prior written agreement and the deductions were not authorised by the contract. | Upheld | — | £3,700 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,037
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.8(1) ERA 1996
- s.11 ERA 1996
- s.12(3) ERA 1996
- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.14 ERA 1996
- National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Working Time (Coronavirus)(Amendment) Regulations 2020
- Regulation 13(10)
- Regulation 14
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.