Case 2304937/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Chamorro Arellano v ISS Facility Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304937/2019
- Decision date
- 16 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Chamorro Arellano
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal determined the claim on the papers after both parties agreed to written representations. The claimant alleged unauthorised deductions from wages relating to her Barclays Bank site work. The respondent denied underpayment and said the claimant had not worked full contractual hours, had failed to clock in or out properly, or had been absent and paid SSP on some occasions.
The Tribunal found there were issues with the respondent's clocking in system and that records had been manually overridden on a number of occasions due to clocking problems. It noted there was no written statement of particulars and no written contractual provision authorising deductions where the clocking system showed a shift was incomplete.
On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal found the claimant had completed the relevant shifts or, in respect of May 2018, had taken a period of leave for which she should have been paid. It found the unauthorised deduction from wages complaint well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £527.10 gross.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant originally sought a larger sum, later reduced to £821.32 after accepting part of the respondent's explanation. Some pleaded sums were conceded or withdrawn; the Tribunal awarded the remaining pleaded deductions totalling £527.10. | Upheld | — | £527 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £527
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.24 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 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.