Case 2601872/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Bogumila Kowalewska v First Recruitment Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601872/2021
- Decision date
- 22 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Bogumila Kowalewska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Bogumila Kowalewska worked for First Recruitment Limited as a Team Leader from 25 March 2019 to 8 June 2021 and was paid £11 per hour. She was suspended on full pay on 28 May 2021 following an allegation of gross misconduct, attended a disciplinary hearing on 8 June 2021, and resigned that day. The tribunal dealt with claims for unpaid wages on 31 May 2021 and 8 June 2021, and for 5.5 days of accrued but untaken holiday pay.
For the wages due on 31 May 2021, the respondent said it had later paid the claimant's net wages of £1,195.26 on 14 September 2021. The tribunal accepted that payment had been made, so no further sum was ordered for that part of the claim, although it still recorded that an unauthorised deduction had occurred because the wages were not paid in full and on time.
On the remaining wage dispute, the tribunal found that the claimant was suspended on full pay and was entitled to be paid during that period. It found there was no contractual or written provision allowing the respondent to withhold wages in the circumstances. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that her electronic devices had been seized and that she had not been able to access her emails, and it did not accept that her failure to attend the first disciplinary meeting meant she was absent without leave so as to justify non-payment. It referred to section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, section 27 ERA 1996, Kent County Council v Knowles, and Abbiw v Vue Entertainment Ltd.
The tribunal ordered £440 gross for unpaid wages due on 8 June 2021, made up of £176 for 2 and 3 June 2021 and £264 for wages during suspension from 3 to 8 June 2021, and £484 gross for accrued but untaken holiday pay. It said it had no jurisdiction to award interest on unpaid wages, and the claimant confirmed at the hearing that she was not pursuing an ACAS uplift.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction in respect of wages due on 31 May 2021, but the respondent later paid the net amount of £1,195.26 on 14 September 2021, so no further sum was ordered. The extracted reasons contain an apparent date error in paragraph 20 ('31 August 2021') when describing the arrest; the later findings and orders relate to the May/June 2021 suspension period. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award for unpaid wages due on 8 June 2021. The £440 gross sum comprised £176 for 2-3 June 2021 and £264 for 3-8 June 2021 during suspension, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £440 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award for failure to pay in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday. The tribunal accepted this was 5.5 days, or 44 hours, at £11 per hour, giving a gross sum of £484 subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £484 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £924
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- Rule 20 Employment Tribunal Rules
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules
- Kent County Council v Knowles
- Abbiw v Vue Entertainment Ltd
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.