Case 4102672/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Cleto-Rodrigues v G S Associates Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102672/2023
- Decision date
- 19 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Neilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Cleto-Rodrigues
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 11 July 2023, Employment Judge S Neilson dealt with Mr Cleto-Rodrigues' claim against G.S. Associates (Scotland) Limited for unauthorised deductions from pay. The tribunal dismissed the claim in respect of van repairs (£1,232), parking penalties (£80), parking fees (£130), hours worked at Curry's (£174), travel time (£115), underpayment on diesel (£20.50), underpayment on hours worked over '435 years' as transcribed (£3,456) save for hours allegedly worked on 5, 7 and 13 November 2022, and a Christmas Eve shift (£95).
The tribunal did not finally determine the alleged deductions for tools and GPS (£500) or the hours allegedly worked on 5, 7 and 13 November 2022. Those matters were to be dealt with at a continued hearing by CVP on 22 September 2023. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record records no monetary award in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed in respect of van repairs (£1,232), parking penalties (£80), parking fees (£130), hours worked at Curry's (£174), travel time (£115), underpayment on diesel (£20.50), underpayment on hours worked over '435 years' as transcribed (£3,456) save for hours allegedly worked on 5, 7 and 13 November 2022, and Christmas Eve shift (£95). The alleged deductions for tools and GPS (£500) and the hours allegedly worked on 5, 7 and 13 November 2022 were left to be dealt with at a continued hearing on 22 September 2023. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.