Case 2404642/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F J Bueno Cantarero v Tru Street Food Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2404642/2019
- Decision date
- 24 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F J Bueno Cantarero
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester on 11 February 2020, before Employment Judge Ross, the Tribunal granted leave to amend the respondent's name to Tru Street Food Limited. The respondent did not attend. It found the claimant's holiday pay complaint well-founded: 52.6 hours of accrued but untaken holiday on termination were valued at £8.20 per hour, producing £431.32. The Tribunal also recorded that the respondent had failed to deal with the claimant's written grievance about holiday pay and, for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice, uplifted that amount by 20% by adding £86.26.
The Tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to provide written particulars of employment and ordered payment of £721.60, described as two weeks' wages (44 hours x £8.20 = £360.80, doubled). The full sum payable within 14 days was £1,239.18. No written reasons were to be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay on termination was well-founded. The tribunal calculated 52.6 hours at £8.20 per hour (£7.70 NMW plus 50 pence gratuities), giving £431.32, and then added a 20% ACAS uplift of £86.26 for failure to deal with the claimant's written grievance about holiday pay, bringing this item to £517.58. | Upheld | — | £518 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment and ordered two weeks' wages, calculated as 44 hours x £8.20 = £360.80 x 2. | Upheld | — | £722 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,239
- 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.