Case 2400855/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Nowaczyk v Arra Distribution Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400855/2022
- Decision date
- 9 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCarthy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Nowaczyk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing before Employment Judge McCarthy sitting alone, the tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend his claim to add further complaints about 7 and 8 October 2021, applying Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore and Abercrombie & Ors v Aga Rangemaster Limited. The claimant later withdrew his holiday pay complaint, which was dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's complaints about unpaid wages on 7 and 8 October 2021 and 5 November 2021. It accepted the respondent's Arra de-brief records, tachograph evidence and payroll evidence, and found that the claimant did not work on 7 and 8 October 2021, was on annual leave and had been paid holiday pay for those days. It also found that on 5 November 2021 the claimant refused to work, was not ready and willing to work, and was therefore not entitled to pay for that shift.
The tribunal also rejected the complaints about deductions on 1 October 2021 and 8 October 2021, finding that the sums deducted from net pay were recovery of earlier net advance payments already made to the claimant in relation to salary arrears, so there was no shortfall in the wages properly payable. It upheld the complaint about 22 October 2021 in the sense that it found an unauthorised deduction of £145 net had been made, but no order was made because that amount had already been repaid on 29 October 2021 under section 25(3) ERA 1996.
The notice pay breach of contract claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant would have earned £680 gross during his one week notice period on the 5 on, 3 off pattern, whereas he had received £880 gross as a payment in lieu of notice. The expenses complaint was dismissed because the tribunal held the claimed sums were not wages and, in any event, arose after the employment had ended so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. No monetary award was made in the final order.
Claims and outcomes
8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claimant withdrew the holiday pay complaint after stating that it had been paid. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint that the claimant had not been paid for 7 and 8 October 2021 (£340 gross). The tribunal found he did not work those days, was on annual leave, and had been paid holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint that the claimant had not been paid for 5 November 2021 (£180 gross). The tribunal found he refused to work, was not ready and willing to work, and was not contractually entitled to pay for that shift. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint that £150 had been deducted from net wages on 1 October 2021. The tribunal found this was recovery of an earlier net advance payment against salary arrears and there was no shortfall in the wages properly payable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint that £280 had been deducted from net wages on 8 October 2021. The tribunal found this was recovery of an earlier net advance payment against salary arrears and there was no shortfall in the wages properly payable. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] ICR 836 EAT
- Abercrombie & Ors v Aga Rangemaster Limited [2014] ICR 209 CA
- Morgan v West Glamorgan County Council [1995] IRLR 68 EAT
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.25(3) ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.