Case 2410947/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr U Hussain v Ignite Gas Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2410947/2021
- Decision date
- 3 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCarthy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr U Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Hussain was employed by Ignite Gas Limited from 20 July 2020 to 29 June 2021 as a Remedials Engineer. His signed contract dated 20 July 2020 stated an hourly rate of £12.50 and contained a deductions clause, clause 7, allowing deductions for sums owed to the company, including certain fines and the cost of repairing or replacing company property. After customer complaints and concerns about his work, the tribunal found that at a meeting on 10 August 2020 he agreed to continue as an improver on £10 per hour, and that the respondent gave him a copy of the minutes recording that discussion.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Series claim about being paid £10 rather than £12.50 per hour. The tribunal found the claimant agreed on 10 August 2020 to move to £10 per hour as an improver; the shortfall for 20 July to 9 August 2020 was treated as an accounting error under section 13(4) ERA 1996 and, in any event, any claim for that period would have been out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim about the £60 deduction from the July 2021 final pay for a bus lane fine. The tribunal found clause 7 of the contract authorised deduction of the £60 actually paid on the claimant's behalf after the respondent had appealed an original £90 charge. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim about the £194.34 deduction for missing company van stock. The tribunal found clause 7 authorised deduction for missing company property, that there was no contractual requirement for the claimant to be present at the stock check, and that the deduction was authorised. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104(1)(b) ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed on 29 June 2021, but held that his 28 June 2021 email was not a good-faith allegation for section 104 purposes and that the principal reason for dismissal was his insistence on being paid £12.50 per hour rather than the statutory allegation itself. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore
- Abercrombie & Ors v Aga Rangemaster Limited
- Solectron Scotland Ltd v Roper and Ors
- Morgan v West Glamorgan County Council
- Bear Scotland Ltd and Ors v Fulton and Ors
- Parkes Classic Confectionary Ltd v Ashcroft
- Maund v Penwith District Council
- Spaceman v ISS Mediclean Ltd (t/a ISS Facility Service Healthcare)
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 23 ERA 1996
- section 104 ERA 1996
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.