Case 3304169/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Bertoncini v Dolphin Movers Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304169/2022
- Decision date
- 18 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Bertoncini
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard on 18 July 2023 at Watford before Employment Judge Quill sitting alone. The respondent did not attend and filed no response, so the matter proceeded under Rule 21. The claimant, Mr B Bertoncini, had worked for the respondent since 1994. He said he was placed on furlough around March 2020 and received around 80% of normal salary until September 2021, after which he remained available for work but was not provided with work or paid.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment order awards £39,584.86 gross for unpaid wages. The reasons at paragraph 9 refer to an aggregate deduction of £39,586.86, so the figures are inconsistent in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | £39,585 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal said it would not award redundancy pay because the employment contract had not terminated and the claim was premature. It made no decision on whether there would be any entitlement in principle if the contract were later terminated. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal said it would not award payment in lieu of holiday pay because the employment contract had not terminated and the claim was premature. It made no decision on whether there would be any entitlement in principle if the contract were later terminated. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £39,585
- 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.