Case 2307266/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Salsano v Tile Center Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2307266/2020
- Decision date
- 5 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Salsano
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge McLaren Date gave judgment under Rule 21 in favour of Mr R Salsano against Tile Center Limited on three monetary claims. The tribunal held that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,375.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £5,918. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £791.
The judgment records that the claim for unfair dismissal would be considered at a final hearing, and that the hearing listed for 13 October 2021 would be converted to a final hearing to consider the unfair dismissal claim and whether a claim could be brought against a second respondent. It also records that claim number 2307331/2020 was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success, on the basis that the first respondent was not insolvent and no period of ACAS early conciliation had been entered into.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded in the sum of £2,375. | Upheld | — | £2,375 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed by reason of redundancy; redundancy payment awarded in the sum of £5,918. | Upheld | — | £5,918 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; £791 awarded. | Upheld | — | £791 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,084
- across all upheld claims
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.