Case 2601735/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Dodson v Gail Marsden t/a Bake my Dayz — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601735/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Welch REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Dodson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J Dodson was employed by Gail Marsden t/a Bake my Dayz as a cook/server from 4 May 2022 to 27 May 2022. The tribunal accepted that the agreed hourly rate was £10, not £9.51 as stated in the response, and that there was no written statement of employment particulars despite the claimant asking for one. It found that she worked 98 hours and 30 minutes in the period and was owed £985 gross wages.
The tribunal rejected the respondent’s assertion that £410 had been paid in cash. It relied on the claimant’s evidence, the inconsistency of the signatures, the misspelling of the claimant’s name, and the fact that one of the dates shown on the document was a day when the claimant was not in work. The tribunal also noted messages in which the claimant asked for payment and claimed the full amount at the end of employment. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was therefore well-founded.
Because the claimant succeeded in a jurisdiction listed in Schedule 5 to the Employment Act 2002, the tribunal considered section 38 of that Act. It found that when proceedings began the respondent was in breach of the duty to provide written employment particulars. There were no exceptional circumstances making the minimum award unjust or inequitable, but the tribunal declined to award four weeks’ pay because, given the claimant’s short service, that would not be just and equitable. It therefore awarded two weeks’ gross pay, quantified at £600.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had worked 98 hours and 30 minutes between 4 May 2022 and 27 May 2022 at an agreed hourly rate of £10, and that no wages had been paid towards that sum. The respondent’s asserted cash payments totalling £410 were rejected because the signatures differed, the claimant’s name was misspelt, and one date fell on a day when she was not at work. The tribunal awarded £985 gross for unpaid wages. A separate £600 award was made under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £985 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,585
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 1 ERA 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.