Case 4103032/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Bright FM Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4103032/2022
- Decision date
- 18 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Kevin Devlin, worked for Bright FM Services Ltd as a cleaner for 12 hours per week from the end of August 2021 until the end of May 2022. The respondent did not lodge an ET3 and did not appear at the hearing. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and accepted his documents and oral evidence.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not been paid wages properly payable at the end of April 2022 or the end of May 2022. Each month’s unpaid wages were £520, making £1,040 in total. The tribunal also found that the claimant had accrued but not taken 4 days of holiday by the end of his employment, and accepted his calculation of holiday pay at £20 per day, totalling £80.
The tribunal therefore held the claim well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £1,120 in total, made up of £1,040 for unpaid wages and £80 for holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had not been paid wages properly payable for April 2022 (£520) and May 2022 (£520). | Upheld | — | £1,040 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had accrued but untaken 4 days' holiday at termination, valued at £20 per day. | Upheld | — | £80 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,120
- 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.