Case 4100033/2019 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100033/2019 Held in Glasgow on July 2019 Employment Judge F J Garvie Mr J Robb v Jordan McPhail — 2019
- Case reference
- 4100033/2019
- Decision date
- 2 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100033/2019 Held in Glasgow on July 2019 Employment Judge F J Garvie Mr J Robb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Robb was an employee of Aspire Community Solutions, the second respondent, and that the second respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from his wages. It ordered the second respondent to pay £746.07 for 6.5 days worked but unpaid, calculated on a daily gross rate of £114.78.
The judgment stated that tax and national insurance contributions on the award would have to be paid by the claimant to HMRC. It also found that Jordan McPhail, the first respondent, was not the claimant's employer and dismissed him from the proceedings.
Written reasons were reserved under rule 62(2) and were to be issued later.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of £746.07 as the gross amount due for 6.5 days worked and unpaid. It stated that tax and national insurance contributions on that sum would have to be paid by the claimant to HMRC. | Upheld | — | £746 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £746
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.