Case 3333911/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z McKinnon v Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3333911/2018
- Decision date
- 4 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z McKinnon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant claimed he was owed £219.04 for unpaid hours worked in July and August 2018. The tribunal considered each date claimed. It found that the hours worked on 28 and 29 July had been included in the claimant's 1 August 2018 pay, and that the claimant had not shown those sums were unpaid.
For August dates, the tribunal found the claimant was entitled to payment for 22 hours, amounting to £176. It accepted some parts of the claimant's account, including six hours on 4 August, 3.5 hours on 5 August, six hours on 11 August, and 6.5 hours on 12 August, but found he was not entitled to payment for 18 and 19 August because he was off sick for only two days and was not entitled to statutory sick pay under the contract.
The tribunal found the claimant had already been paid for 21.5 of the 22 hours due, leaving 0.5 hours unpaid at £8 per hour. It therefore held that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from wages in the sum of £4 and ordered payment of that sum. The claimant had not shown further financial loss attributable to the unpaid wages complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant claimed unpaid wages of £219.04, but the tribunal found only £4 remained unpaid after accounting for hours already paid. | Upheld | — | £4 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- balance of probability
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.