Case 3311887/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Burek v The General K&M Building Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311887/2023
- Decision date
- 21 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Burek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Quill, sitting alone at Watford Employment Tribunal on 1 July 2024, ordered The General K&M Building Services Ltd to pay Ms M Burek a grand total of £6,217.56 within 14 days. The judgment is composed of three discrete components rather than a single global award.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages for the period 1 July 2023 to 15 September 2023, and ordered payment of £1,976 in respect of those deductions. It further found that the respondent had breached the claimant's contract by dismissing her on 10 days' notice when she was contractually entitled to 7 weeks' notice, and awarded damages of £1,721.56 for that breach. Finally, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to statutory redundancy pay of £2,520.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons would only be produced on a written request by either party within 14 days. The published document is the written record of the judgment rather than full reasons, so the tribunal's detailed reasoning is not set out on the face of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 1 July 2023 to 15 September 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,976 |
| Breach of contract | Claimant dismissed with 10 days' notice when entitled to 7 weeks' notice; damages awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,722 |
| Redundancy | Claimant held entitled to statutory redundancy pay. | Upheld | — | £2,520 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,218
- 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.