Case 2500762/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v GEC Solutions Ltd T/a Green Energy Consulting — 2017
- Case reference
- 2500762/2017
- Decision date
- 17 January 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Speker OBE
- Venue
- North Shields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard four joined claims against GEC Solutions Limited t/a Green Energy Consulting at North Shields on 4 January 2018. It noted that the documentary evidence was incomplete, including the absence of a detailed paginated bundle and detailed payroll and commission records, although it had the claim forms, responses, some emails, letters of acceptance and the handbook. The tribunal found no substance in the suggestion that the missing documents could not have been produced.
For Glenn Burns, employed from 1 March 2017 to 2 May 2017, the tribunal accepted his evidence that he kept in regular contact during his absence and rejected the respondent's contrary case. It awarded £1,320 unpaid wages and £461.53 holiday pay. On commission, the tribunal accepted that the contract value was said to be £19,000 and that 10% commission would otherwise have produced £1,900, but it reduced the figure to £950 to reflect the risk of later contract failure and added £11.64 admitted commission, making £961.64.
For Paul Darling, employed from 1 February 2017 to 2 June 2017, the respondent conceded holiday pay of £376.71, wages for two weeks lying on of £1,145.83, and two days' pay of £147.96. The remaining dispute was commission, and the tribunal made a broad and proportionate award of £3,750 because the records were incomplete and the parties' figures differed. For Sean Flaherty, employed from 15 February 2017 to 24 April 2017, the tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that poor sales performance amounted to gross misconduct. It held that the issue was capability rather than conduct and that section 86(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not deprive him of minimum statutory notice, so it awarded £276.92 unpaid wages, £120 holiday pay, £269.71 commission and £461.53 in lieu of notice.
For Paula Roberts, employed from 3 April 2017 to 16 May 2017, the tribunal reached the same conclusion on notice: alleged gross misconduct did not justify withholding one week's notice pay. It awarded £432.69 in lieu of notice. The stated totals were £2,743.17 for Mr Burns, £5,420.44 for Mr Darling, £1,128.16 for Mr Flaherty and £432.69 for Mrs Roberts.
Claims and outcomes
12 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Glenn Burns: unpaid wages; the tribunal awarded £1,320 after finding the respondent's wage records incomplete. | Upheld | — | £1,320 |
| Holiday pay | Glenn Burns: holiday pay awarded on the claimant's calculation. | Upheld | — | £462 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Glenn Burns: commission; the tribunal awarded £950 for a £19,000 contract plus £11.64 admitted commission. | Upheld | — | £962 |
| Holiday pay | Paul Darling: holiday pay; the respondent conceded this head. | Upheld | — | £377 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Paul Darling: wages for two weeks lying on; the respondent conceded this head. | Upheld | — | £1,146 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Paul Darling: unauthorised deduction of pay for two days; the respondent conceded this head. | Upheld | — | £148 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Paul Darling: commission awarded on a broad and proportionate basis because the records were incomplete and the parties' figures differed. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,724
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.86(6) Employment Rights Act 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.