Case 2411650/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Wilhelm v Bon Appetit Foodie Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411650/2023
- Decision date
- 19 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R. Lloyd
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Wilhelm
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an uncontested hearing at Manchester (by CVP) before Employment Judge R. Lloyd; the Respondent did not attend and had played no part in the claim. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages by deducting 30 minutes per day for a lunch break the Claimant was not permitted to take, calculated across 260 working days in 2022 and 236 working days in 2023 at the relevant national minimum wage. The Tribunal also found that the Respondent had failed to provide a written statement of the main terms of employment contrary to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that the Claimant was owed pay for 28 days of untaken statutory leave on termination.
On the discrimination claims, the Tribunal upheld the complaint of direct race discrimination identified in paragraphs 27.1.1 and 27.1.2 of the case management order of 16 May 2024, accepting the Claimant as a credible witness and finding that his shifts were reduced from five to three days per week between 1 October 2023 and the end of his employment on 28 November 2023 to allow Urdu-speaking workers more shifts, and that he was treated less favourably because of his race. The complaint of age discrimination was not made out and was dismissed.
The Respondent was ordered to pay a total of £8,987.08, comprising £2,422.96 for unlawful deductions from wages, £2,625.84 for untaken holiday, £1,500 for injury to feelings, £1,500.48 for the reduction in shifts, and £937.80 for failure to provide a contract of employment. Tax and national insurance fall to be deducted from the wage-related elements. The Tribunal also gave notice that interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 would accrue from 20 September 2024 at the stipulated rate of 8% per annum if the award was not paid within 14 days of 19 September 2024.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Deductions for unpaid lunch breaks over 2022 and 2023, backdated for the two-year period. | Upheld | — | £2,423 |
| Holiday pay | 28 days of untaken leave in final leave year, calculated as £10.42 x 9 hours x 28 days. | Upheld | — | £2,626 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to provide a written statement of main terms under s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996; two weeks' pay awarded. | Upheld | — | £938 |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination (paras 27.1.1 and 27.1.2 of the case management order) made out: hours cut from 5 to 3 days to allow Urdu-speaking workers more shifts. Award comprises £1,500 injury to feelings and £1,500.48 loss of salary. | Upheld | Race | £3,000 |
| Age discrimination | Age discrimination complaint not made out and dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Working time regulations | Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations but the judgment addresses the lunch-break issue as unlawful deductions from wages rather than a separate WTR finding; no separate WTR outcome stated. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,987
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
- section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838
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.