Case 3304997/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Piekielniak v Phoenix Healthcare and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304997/2022
- Decision date
- 26 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Piekielniak
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Piekielniak, was employed by Phoenix Healthcare Ltd as a driver from 2 May 2021 and also worked for Rentacar 24/7 Ltd when he was not busy for the first respondent. The tribunal found that he could not use the first respondent's app to log hours, that he instead kept his own paper records and sent them by photograph and WhatsApp, and that he was not provided with payslips for the period from June until the end of his employment. It admitted Ms Mariam Khan's late statement subject to limited weight because she did not attend, and it preferred the claimant's evidence to the evidence of Mr Hussein and Mr Ahmed on the material issues.
On the wages claim, the tribunal found that the first respondent was responsible for payroll for both respondents because they shared the payroll software or system through which the claimant was paid. It therefore held that the respondents had made unauthorised deductions from wages, on a joint and several basis, in respect of 323.58 hours worked but not paid. The amount ordered on that claim was £2,912.19.
The tribunal also found that the first respondent, and not the second respondent, was responsible for issuing the claimant's contract and written particulars. It accordingly awarded the claimant £810 under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars, describing this as the equivalent of two weeks' salary. The total sum ordered by the judgment was £3,722.19.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of 323.58 hours worked but not paid. The respondents were held jointly and severally liable for £2,912.19. | Upheld | — | £2,912 |
| Other | The first respondent was ordered to pay £810 under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; the tribunal said this was the equivalent of two weeks' salary. | Upheld | — | £810 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,722
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 2 (the overriding objective)
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- balance of probabilities
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.