Case 3313392/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Padula v ATL Security – Armarium Security RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313392/2023
- Decision date
- 21 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Padula
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Padula was employed by ATL Security – Armarium Security as a security guard on a zero hours contract between 11 May 2023 and 14 September 2023. After ACAS conciliation, he brought a claim on 23 November 2023 alleging he had not been paid properly for all shifts worked and had received only a few pay slips, and that the Respondent had blocked communications when he complained. The Respondent failed to present a response and did not appear at the preliminary hearing on 23 September 2024, which was used to determine liability and remedy.
Employment Judge S Moore, sitting alone at Watford (CVP), found the Claimant to be a credible witness who provided detailed information about his shifts, the payments received, his pay slips and his attempted communications with the Respondent. The Judge accepted his evidence that he should have been paid £3,676.80 but had only been paid £2,830.36.
The claim of breach of contract and/or unlawful deduction of wages therefore succeeded in the sum of £864.44 gross, representing the shortfall, with the Claimant responsible for any tax due on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim pleaded as breach of contract and/or unlawful deduction of wages; tribunal upheld it as a single award of £864.44 gross without splitting between the two legal bases. | Upheld | — | £864 |
| Breach of contract | Pleaded in the alternative with the unlawful deduction claim; succeeds in the same sum of £864.44 gross, not separately quantified. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £864
- 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.