Case 2600733/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Wilczynski v Alto Electrical Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600733/2024
- Decision date
- 25 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Wilczynski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Shore, sitting alone at Lincoln Magistrates' Court on 18 September 2024, heard the claim of Mr M Wilczynski against Alto Electrical Limited. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not appear. The Tribunal first corrected the respondent's name to Alto Electrical Limited.
The Tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was well-founded and succeeded, ordering the respondent to pay £4,188.38 gross in respect of wages for December 2023 and January 2024, £310.25 gross for accrued but untaken time off in lieu, and £155.13 gross for unpaid holiday pay. The Tribunal also found the claimant's breach of contract claim well-founded and succeeded, ordering payment of £85.07 gross for unpaid expenses and £775.63 gross for one week's notice.
The total payable by the respondent to the claimant was £5,514.46 gross (without deduction of Income Tax and National Insurance). Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons were not provided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Comprises £4,188.38 unpaid wages for December 2023 and January 2024, £310.25 for accrued untaken time off in lieu, and £155.13 unpaid holiday pay (all gross). | Upheld | — | £4,654 |
| Breach of contract | Comprises £85.07 unpaid expenses and £775.63 for one week's notice (all gross). | Upheld | — | £861 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,514
- 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.