Case 4103023/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103023/2023 Mr M Kierzenka v The Meatery Hamilton — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103023/2023
- Decision date
- 1 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103023/2023 Mr M Kierzenka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which no response had been presented by The Meatery Hamilton, so the Employment Judge determined the claim on the available material without a hearing. The judgment records that the listed hearing on 8 August 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal upheld a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages. It found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant for 34 hours at a rate of £14 per hour gross and ordered payment of £476.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant's holiday pay claim. It found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement for 55.4 hours at a rate of £14 per hour gross and ordered payment of £775.60. The judgment does not record any separate award of interest or other compensation, and the total payable on the face of the judgment is £1,251.60.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from wages for 34 hours at £14 per hour, gross. | Upheld | — | £476 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent was found to have failed to pay holiday entitlement for 55.4 hours at £14 per hour, gross. | Upheld | — | £776 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,252
- 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.