Case 3328778/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Szczurek Miss S Matejas v Deborah Wallace — 2019
- Case reference
- 3328778/2017
- Decision date
- 22 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Szczurek Miss S Matejas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Reading Employment Tribunal on 22 July 2019 before Employment Judge Anstis sitting alone. Both Claimants appeared in person. The Respondent, Deborah Wallace, did not attend and did not file written representations.
The tribunal dismissed the Claimants' claims for a redundancy payment. The written judgment does not set out further reasons in the extracted text beyond recording that dismissal.
The tribunal upheld the claims that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages. It ordered payment of £3,294.85 to Mr G Szczurek and £3,034.45 to Miss S Matejas. The judgment records that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Claimants' claims for a redundancy payment were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from the wages of the first Claimant, Mr G Szczurek; the tribunal ordered payment of £3,294.85. | Upheld | — | £3,295 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from the wages of the second Claimant, Miss S Matejas; the tribunal ordered payment of £3,034.45. | Upheld | — | £3,034 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,329
- 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.