Case 3200163/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Butler v Radleypost Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200163/2020
- Decision date
- 12 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge WA Allen
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Butler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr O Butler brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages in the sum of £753.84 arising from his brief engagement with RadleyPost Limited, which ran from 1 October 2019 to 23 October 2019. He said he was due to be paid on 31 October 2019 for 13 days' work, including agreed half-days for hospital appointments and one day's holiday pay, but received neither payment nor a payslip. The respondent did not present an ET3, did not attend the hearing, and took no part in the proceedings.
At the remote hearing on 12 June 2020, the claimant adopted the contents of his ET1 as his evidence and confirmed that no payment had been made after the claim was presented. The tribunal accepted that he had worked 13 days and had not been paid the gross sum of £753.84 for that work, so the claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded. Judgment was entered for the respondent to pay the claimant £753.84 gross.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant said the sum was gross pay for 13 days' work during his engagement from 1 October 2019 to 23 October 2019. The respondent did not present a response or take part in the hearing. | Upheld | — | £754 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £754
- 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.