Case 3318752/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Prekopuca v Cleshar Contract Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3318752/2019
- Decision date
- 20 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lang
- Venue
- by CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Prekopuca
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr E Prekopuca brought a complaint of unlawful deduction from wages against Cleshar Contract Services Limited, limited by the Deduction from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014 to the period 2 June 2017 to 1 June 2019. He said he had been underpaid by reference to the shift rates he considered should have applied to his SPL and PWT work.
The tribunal found that his contractual rates from 9 March 2015 were £80 per shift for Skilled Plate Layer work and £107 per shift for PWT work. The respondent introduced a new grading structure and offered higher rates, including £90 in October 2015 and later £85 for SPL work and £110 for PWT work in 2017, but those increases were conditional on the claimant signing a new contract. He did not sign the contracts, and the tribunal found there was no obligation on the respondent to pay back pay for the earlier period he complained about.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant refused to sign further contracts because he was dissatisfied that the October 2015 letter did not reach him until December 2015 and because the respondent would not backdate the higher rate. It found that this did not alter the contractual position. For the relevant period, the claimant was paid £80 per shift for SPL work and £107 per shift for PWT work, with the SPL rate increasing to £85 from April 2019.
On that basis, the tribunal answered its key questions by finding that the contractual rates in force at 2 June 2017 were £80 and £107, that the SPL rate later increased to £85 from April 2019 while the PWT rate remained £107, and that the claimant was paid at the applicable rates throughout. It concluded that no deductions from wages were made during June 2017 to June 2019 and dismissed the claim as not well founded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant was paid the correct contractual shift rates during the relevant period and that no unauthorised deduction was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Deduction from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014
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.