Case 2602691/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Rojek v Recruit Works Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602691/2019
- Decision date
- 23 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Rojek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Rojek brought a single claim against Recruit Works Limited for £565.50 said to be due in wages. The reasons explain that the sum related to his entitlement to SSP during a period of sickness absence, and that although the tribunal had no jurisdiction to resolve the underlying disputed eligibility question, the respondent agency filed an ET3 response in which it did not seek to defend the claim.
On that basis, the tribunal treated the amount as agreed as owing to the claimant as wages and entered judgment in default under Rule 21. The judgment ordered the respondent to pay the net sum of £565.50 and cancelled the hearing listed for 24 January 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerned £565.50 said to be properly due in wages; the reasons state the sum related to SSP during sickness absence. The tribunal noted it had no jurisdiction to resolve disputed eligibility to SSP, but the respondent did not seek to defend the claim in its ET3 response. | Upheld | — | £566 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £566
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.