Case 2408381/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Ward v Back2Work Group Employment Service Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408381/2021
- Decision date
- 7 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Ward
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the case under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Mark Butler decided that the claim could properly be determined without a further hearing. The decision therefore proceeded on the basis of the claimant's claim and the tribunal's assessment of the sums due.
The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,859.20 gross, calculated by multiplying £8.30 by 224 hours. It also ordered payment of £531.20 gross for unpaid holiday leave that remained outstanding on termination of employment, calculated by multiplying £8.30 by 8 hours per day for 8 days.
The total ordered was £2,390.40 gross, payable within 14 days of the judgment. The tribunal noted that the figures were gross figures and that the respondent would need to make any necessary tax deductions at source before paying the balance to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,859.20, calculated as £8.30 multiplied by 224 hours. | Upheld | — | £1,859 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered payment of £531.20 for unpaid holiday leave outstanding on termination, calculated as £8.30 multiplied by 8 hours per day multiplied by 8 days. | Upheld | — | £531 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,390
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.