Case 3302331/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Caluian v M4 Recruitment (1st Respondent) Asda Stores Limited (2nd Respondent) Clockwork Outsource (3rd Respondent) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302331/2023
- Decision date
- 14 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Read Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Caluian
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn the 2nd Respondent's application under Rule 34, Asda Stores Limited was removed as a party. The tribunal then determined the remaining complaints against M4 Recruitment and Clockwork Outsource. The judgment records that the claimant appeared in person, with representation for the 1st and 2nd Respondents and no attendance by the 3rd Respondent.
The complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996 against M4 Recruitment was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The same type of complaint against Clockwork Outsource was found well-founded, and the tribunal ordered Clockwork Outsource to pay the claimant £475.31.
The holiday pay complaint against M4 Recruitment was also found not well-founded and dismissed. The holiday pay complaint against Clockwork Outsource was well-founded; the tribunal stated that the respondent failed to pay holiday pay in accordance with regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the Employment Rights Act 1996, and ordered Clockwork Outsource to pay £1,351.38. The judgment also records that the claimant is responsible for any tax, National Insurance, or other statutory deductions on the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against M4 Recruitment (1st Respondent) dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against Clockwork Outsource (3rd Respondent) well-founded; ordered to pay £475.31. | Upheld | — | £475 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim against M4 Recruitment (1st Respondent) dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim against Clockwork Outsource (3rd Respondent) well-founded; ordered to pay £1,351.38. | Upheld | — | £1,351 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,827
- 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.