Case 3201467/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Pasieka v T.Class Security Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201467/2019
- Decision date
- 21 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Pasieka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present an ET3 within the time limit. Employment Judge Crosfill considered the information in the ET1 and issued judgment on 21 August 2019.
The claimant’s arrears of pay claim was found well founded. The judgment records that the respondent was ordered to pay £267.75 in wages, calculated as 25.5 hours at £10.50 per hour.
The claimant’s separate travel expenses claim was also found well founded. The respondent was ordered to pay £66.00 for travel expenses, calculated as 4 x £14.00. The total sum awarded by the judgment was £333.75.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim described as arrears of pay, brought either under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Upheld | — | £268 |
| Breach of contract | Claim described as travel expenses, brought under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Upheld | — | £66 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £334
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.