Case 2403617/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Balassone v Ailyn’s Bakery Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2403617/2022
- Decision date
- 14 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCarthy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Balassone
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard remotely by CVP at Liverpool on 4 November 2022 before Employment Judge McCarthy sitting alone. The respondent did not attend. The judgment records two successful claims for unauthorised deduction from wages brought by Ms R Balassone against Ailyn’s Bakery Ltd.
First, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant the full amount of wages due for March 2022. It held that this was an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £490.50, described as the total gross sum deducted.
Second, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment. It held that this was also an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £565, described as the gross sum due. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for March 2022 and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £491 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of payment in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination and ordered payment of the gross sum due. | Upheld | — | £565 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,056
- 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.
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.