Case 4102622/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Salah v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 4102622/2025
- Decision date
- 10 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Mannion
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Salah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for payments said to be due, identified in the judgment as annual leave, notice pay and wages. The respondent did not attend and the claim proceeded undefended.
The claimant gave evidence about the sums due and produced documents including payslips, bank statements, screenshots of annual leave entitlement and his contract of employment. The tribunal found the claim successful and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £6,282.01.
The tribunal delivered oral reasons at the hearing. No written reasons were attached to the judgment note, with the parties informed of their ability to request written reasons or seek reconsideration within the stated time limits.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal described this as part of a successful claim for payments, namely annual leave, notice pay and wages. The award was not split between components. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was included in the successful claim for payments. The judgment did not provide further detail or a separate amount for this component. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Wages were included in the successful claim for payments. The award was not split between annual leave, notice pay and wages. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,282
- 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.