Case 4102735/2019 · Employment Tribunal
16 A (Scot) Rule judgment template (simple) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102735/2019 Mr M McDonald v Urban Cocktails — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102735/2019
- Decision date
- 17 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Jane Garvie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
16 A (Scot) Rule judgment template (simple) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102735/2019 Mr M McDonald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a rule 21 judgment because no response had been presented to the claim and it decided the case on the available material. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £90, calculated as three four-hour shifts at £7.50 per hour.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £60, calculated as two four-hour shifts at £7.50 per hour. On the holiday entitlement claim, it found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday pay and ordered £495, calculated on the basis of 44.48 hours of entitlement being £330 and a further 6 months being £165.
The judgment therefore awarded the claimant £645 in total across the three upheld claims. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge F Jane Garvie on 16 April 2019 and entered in the register on 17 April 2019.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as 3 four-hour shifts at £7.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £90 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay calculated as 2 four-hour shifts at £7.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £60 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday entitlement calculated on the basis of 44.48 hours (£330) plus a further 6 months (£165). | Upheld | — | £495 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £645
- 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.