Case 3314965/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Cecilia Medina Rivas v Jungs Bakery — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314965/2022
- Decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett Date
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Cecilia Medina Rivas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Cecilia Medina Rivas brought claims against Jungs Bakery for holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1999 and for unlawful deductions from wages under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent did not attend the hearing, which was held at Watford on 9 June 2023 before Employment Judge Bartlett sitting alone.
The tribunal upheld both claims. It found that the holiday pay claim succeeded and awarded £1,657.14. It also found that the unlawful deductions from wages claim succeeded and awarded £875.15 net. No separate findings on liability beyond those outcomes were set out in the short written judgment, and written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the claimant's holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1999 succeeded and awarded £1,657.14. | Upheld | — | £1,657 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant's unlawful deductions from wages claim under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded and awarded £875.15 net. | Upheld | — | £875 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,532
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Working Time Regulations 1999
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.