Case 4100950/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100950/2022 Mr R Bruce v Weir & McQuiston (Scotland) Limited (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100950/2022
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100950/2022 Mr R Bruce
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because no response had been presented to the claim. On the available material, the Employment Judge found that Weir & McQuiston (Scotland) Limited (In Administration) had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr R Bruce's wages.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £280.43. The judgment records that the claimant's basic hourly rate was £9.67 per hour and that the sum due was based on 6 hours worked but not paid at time-and-a-half rate, and 10 hours worked but not paid at double-time rate.
All other heads of claim were withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52. The judgment does not identify those other heads of claim in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records an unauthorised deduction from wages and orders payment of £280.43. | Upheld | — | £280 |
| Other | The judgment states that all other heads of claim were withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52, but does not identify those heads of claim in the extracted text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £280
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.