Case 4102358/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Twaha Abdulrahim S a i d v Proficient Security Ltd F i r s t and 1 other — 2018
- Case reference
- 4102358/2017
- Decision date
- 8 January 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Twaha Abdulrahim S a i d
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Said was employed by Proficient Security Ltd as a Security Officer/Guard from 16 January 2017 to 29 May 2017. The tribunal first determined that Proficient Security Ltd, and not Grangewood Solutions Payroll Company, was his employer and dismissed Grangewood from the proceedings under Rule 34. It then converted the preliminary hearing into a final hearing under Rule 48 and heard only the claimant's evidence, which it found credible and reliable.
On liability, the tribunal upheld an automatically unfair dismissal claim under s.104 ERA 1996, finding that the claimant was dismissed because he asserted his statutory right under s.13 ERA 1996 not to suffer unlawful deductions from wages. It accepted that he had repeatedly pursued unpaid salary, that the respondent gave no alternative reason for the termination on 29 May 2017, and that he had made reasonable efforts to mitigate his loss after dismissal.
On remedy for dismissal, the tribunal awarded £19,762.50, made up of £11,160 past loss from 30 May 2017 to 16 November 2017, £8,370 future loss for 18 weeks, and £232.50 for loss of statutory rights. It noted that recoupment applied, with a prescribed element of £11,160, and then applied a 25% uplift of £4,940.63 because the respondent failed to respond to the claimant's grievance or hold a grievance meeting.
On the remaining heads, the tribunal upheld breach of contract for notice pay but made no separate award, awarded £465 holiday pay, awarded £4,794.34 for unlawful deductions from wages, and made a declaration that the respondent had breached s.8 ERA 1996 by failing to issue itemised pay statements, with no money awarded. It dismissed the unfair break deduction and TUPE compensation claims as not well-founded, and separately awarded £930 under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment. The clerk was also directed to send the judgment to HMRC for possible investigation of PAYE and national insurance deductions.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal under s.104 ERA 1996 for asserting the statutory right under s.13 ERA 1996 not to suffer unlawful deductions from wages; the figure includes the £19,762.50 compensatory award and the £4,940.63 uplift. | Upheld | — | £24,703 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay one week's notice pay was upheld, but no separate award was made because the dismissal compensation covered it. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found one week's accrued holiday pay unpaid and awarded £465. | Upheld | — | £465 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Outstanding wages were recalculated by the tribunal after adjusting the claimant's own summary for arithmetic inconsistencies. | Upheld | — | £4,794 |
| Other | Failure to issue itemised pay statements under s.8 ERA 1996; the tribunal made a declaration only and awarded no monetary compensation, except that payslips dated 25 February and 25 March 2017 were treated as issued. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The unfair break deduction claim was not elaborated in evidence and was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £30,892
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £19,763
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.8 ERA 1996
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
- s.123 ERA 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- Alimad Construction Ltd v Laing
- Bethnal Green & Shoreditch Education Trust v Dippenaar
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.