Case 4102939/2017 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: S/4102939/2017 Held in Glasgow on October 2017 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr Ferenc Scherer v Represented by Ms N Kovacs –15 Representative Renderworks Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 4102939/2017
- Decision date
- 7 November 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr WA
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: S/4102939/2017 Held in Glasgow on October 2017 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr Ferenc Scherer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe First and Second Claimants were Hungarian roughcast installers. The tribunal accepted that they entered into an oral contract with the Respondent on 26 April 2017 to be paid £8.80 per square metre net, that they worked under the Respondent's direction and supervision, and that they were workers for section 230(3) ERA 1996 purposes. The Respondent did not file a response or attend. Ms N Kovacs gave evidence for the Claimants and was found credible.
The tribunal found unlawful deduction of wages in respect of both Claimants. It accepted that each Claimant was owed £631 for work between 20 and 30 June 2017 and £400 for work between 3 and 7 July 2017, making £1,031 each. The Respondent was ordered to pay those sums.
On race discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the Respondent had paid its Scottish roughcasting squads but withheld payment from the Claimants, who were Hungarian. Applying section 136 EqA 2010, it found facts from which discrimination could be inferred and, with no response from the Respondent, held that race discrimination was made out. It found loss of four weeks' earnings of £1,320 each, less casual earnings of £650 each, leaving £670 each, and awarded £1,000 each for injury to feelings in the lower Vento band. Interest at 8% of £23.48 each was added, making the race discrimination award £1,670 each plus interest.
The victimisation allegation was dismissed. The tribunal held that the Claimants' request for payment of wages, without an allegation at that stage of an Equality Act contravention, was not a protected act within section 27 EqA 2010.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First Claimant. The tribunal found £631 due for work between 20 and 30 June 2017 and £400 due for work between 3 and 7 July 2017. | Upheld | — | £1,031 |
| Race discrimination | First Claimant. The tribunal found race discrimination by reference to nationality (Hungarian). The award comprised £670 net financial loss and £1,000 injury to feelings, with interest of £23.48 ordered separately. | Upheld | Race | £1,670 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second Claimant. The tribunal found £631 due for work between 20 and 30 June 2017 and £400 due for work between 3 and 7 July 2017. | Upheld | — | £1,031 |
| Race discrimination | Second Claimant. The tribunal found race discrimination by reference to nationality (Hungarian). The award comprised £670 net financial loss and £1,000 injury to feelings, with interest of £23.48 ordered separately. | Upheld | Race | £1,670 |
| Victimisation | The joint victimisation allegation by both Claimants was dismissed because the request for payment of wages was not, at the point first made, a protected act for section 27 Equality Act 2010 purposes. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,449
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,340
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 230(3) ERA 1996 worker definition
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 13 EqA 2010
- section 27 EqA 2010
- section 136 EqA 2010
- Vento bands
- Simmons v Castle
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.