Case 4102808/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Peter Kolakovic v Metatec Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102808/2023
- Decision date
- 7 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Peter Kolakovic
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and Employment Judge C McManus issued judgment under rule 21 on the available material in respect of statutory redundancy pay and unpaid wages only. The tribunal found that Mr Peter Kolakovic was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment.
The redundancy payment was calculated at £10,384.50 using the claimant’s gross weekly wage of £346.15, his age at the date of termination on 28 February 2023, and 20 complete years of service. The tribunal also found that Metatec Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from wages.
For the wages claim, the tribunal ordered payment of £2,550.28 for unpaid wages for January and February 2023, calculated at the net rate of £1,275.14 per month. The combined award recorded by the judgment is £12,934.78.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Rule 21 judgment issued on the available material; the tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a statutory redundancy payment calculated using a gross weekly wage of £346.15, age at termination, and 20 complete years of service. | Upheld | — | £10,385 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment issued on the available material; the tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment for unpaid wages for January and February 2023 at the net rate of £1,275.14 per month. | Upheld | — | £2,550 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,935
- 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.