Case 2600787/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Peter Chukwunonso Okoronkwo v Red Bean Recruitment Ltd T/A RB Social Care Record of a Hearing by CVP at the Employment Tribunal Audio Recorded by CVP — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600787/2024
- Decision date
- 6 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Peter Chukwunonso Okoronkwo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hutchinson, sitting alone at Nottingham on 4 December 2024, heard the claim by CVP. The Claimant was represented by a lay representative; the Respondent did not appear. The Judge amended the Respondent's name to Red Bean Recruitment Ltd T/A RB Social Care.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unlawful deduction of the Claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £520.00. It further found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant his holiday pay and ordered payment of £51.59.
The Respondent was additionally ordered to pay £532.58 in respect of preparation time and disbursements. The total amount payable by the Respondent to the Claimant was £1,104.17. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons were not provided in this record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £520.00 in respect of an unlawful deduction of wages. | Upheld | — | £520 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant his holiday pay and ordered payment of £51.59. | Upheld | — | £52 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,104
- 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.