Case 3314359/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Caliskan v Selica International for Innovation and Evolution Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314359/2019
- Decision date
- 8 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr Ian Bone, Mr Andrew Wimborne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Caliskan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP at Watford on 8 February 2021 before Employment Judge Alliott, with Mr Ian Bone and Mr Andrew Wimborne as members. The judgment records that the hearing proceeded remotely because a face-to-face hearing was not practicable and the issues could be determined remotely.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unauthorised deduction from wages claim and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £846.15. It dismissed the claimant's claim for race discrimination described as harassment. The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasons for the decision because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided in the absence of a request.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £846.15 for unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £846 |
| Harassment | The claim for race discrimination (harassment) was dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided unless requested. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £846
- 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.