Case 4100326/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no: 4100326/2020 (A) Held via telephone conference call on August 2020 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr W Tabakh v Represented by: Ms L Campbell Solicitor Giza Catering Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100326/2020
- Decision date
- 17 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no: 4100326/2020 (A) Held via telephone conference call on August 2020 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr W Tabakh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for Giza Catering Ltd as a waiter at the Giza restaurant in Dundee from 22 July 2019 to 9 September 2019. He was paid at an agreed rate of £7.70 per hour and kept his own record of hours worked, which the tribunal accepted. The respondent did not submit an ET3 or take part in the hearing, and the tribunal heard evidence from the claimant alone and found him credible.
On the evidence accepted by the tribunal, the claimant worked 382.5 hours across the period of employment and received no payment from the respondent. The tribunal held that this amounted to an unlawful deduction of wages in the gross sum of £2,945.25. It also found that the respondent's failure to pay wages was a material breach of contract, that the claimant was entitled to terminate without notice, and that he was treated as dismissed under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996. For that breach of contract claim, the claimant was awarded one week's gross pay of £420.73 in lieu of notice.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had not been given a written statement of particulars of employment when proceedings began. Because the tribunal was making an award on the related proceedings and the respondent had been in breach of section 1(1) ERA 1996, section 38(3) Employment Act 2002 applied. The tribunal awarded the higher amount of four weeks' pay, £1,682.92, and found that there were no exceptional circumstances making that unjust or inequitable. The gross sums of £2,945.25 and £420.73 were ordered to be paid subject to deduction of the appropriate income tax and National Insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent's failure to pay wages was a material breach of contract, entitled the claimant to terminate without notice, and treated him as dismissed under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The award was one week's gross pay for loss of notice. | Upheld | — | £421 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted the claimant's hours record and bank statements, found he had worked 382.5 hours at £7.70 per hour, and held that he had not been paid. The figure was stated as a gross amount subject to income tax and National Insurance deductions. | Upheld | — | £2,945 |
| Other | This was the claim for failure to give a written statement of initial employment particulars. The tribunal applied section 38(3) Employment Act 2002, awarded the higher amount of four weeks' pay, and found no exceptional circumstances making that unjust or inequitable. | Upheld | — | £1,683 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,049
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.86(1) ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.1(1) ERA 1996
- s.38(3) Employment Act 2002
- s.38(5) Employment Act 2002
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.