Case 3313352/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr and Mrs Stringer, Directors — 2018
- Case reference
- 3313352/2019
- Decision date
- 29 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with four pay-related issues. The Respondents conceded the Claimant’s claim for outstanding holiday pay, and the tribunal ordered payment of £336. The Respondents also accepted that there had been an unlawful deduction of wages in respect of the DBS Certificate, and were ordered to pay £56.
Two further unlawful deduction claims were rejected. The tribunal found that the Claimant’s signed contract clearly incorporated processes and procedures allowing the Respondents to withhold sums in respect of training and uniform, so no unlawful deduction arose on that basis. The Claimant’s claim for payment for one shift on 29 December 2018, said to be worth £50, was also not well founded because there was no evidence that a timesheet had been completed on that day, which was required in order to be paid.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The Respondents conceded the claim for outstanding holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £336 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Respondents accepted there had been an unlawful deduction of wages in respect of the DBS Certificate. | Upheld | — | £56 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The signed contract incorporated processes and procedures entitling the Respondents to withhold sums in respect of training and uniform. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for one shift on 29 December 2018, said to be worth £50, was not well founded because there was no evidence of a timesheet having been completed that day, which was required for payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £392
- 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.