Case 3312102/2022 · Employment Tribunal
MR C HOLLAND v FedEx Express UK Transportation Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312102/2022
- Decision date
- 20 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR C HOLLAND
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment recorded that reasons had been given orally at the hearing before Employment Judge Skehan at Watford on 19 June 2023. The claimant was represented by Mr Richards, a union representative, and the respondent by Mr Wright, counsel.
The Tribunal dismissed the claimant's unauthorised deduction from wages claims in relation to four specified matters because it did not have jurisdiction to consider them: non-payment for two shifts worked over the Christmas period in 2018, lost holiday pay for 14-30 April 2019, the claimant's use of annual leave rather than bereavement leave for two periods of time off in October 2018 and April 2020, and underpayment for a shift worked on Good Friday 2021.
The written judgment did not record any monetary award. It also stated that the claimant's remaining unauthorised deduction from wages claims and his claim for unlawful detriment following a protected disclosure were unaffected by this judgment, so no outcome on those claims was recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for lack of Employment Tribunal jurisdiction in respect of four specified matters: non-payment for two shifts over Christmas 2018, lost holiday pay for 14-30 April 2019, use of annual leave rather than bereavement leave for time off in October 2018 and April 2020, and underpayment for a Good Friday 2021 shift. Other unauthorised deduction claims were expressly unaffected by this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.