Case 4103291/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103291/2023 Mr J A Rodriguez Diaz v Nevis Ensemble — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103291/2023
- Decision date
- 19 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Maclean Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103291/2023 Mr J A Rodriguez Diaz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 because no response had been presented by the respondent. On the available material, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,036.23, calculated as 13 days' gross pay at £79.71 per day.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £239.13, described as one week's gross pay. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £470.29, calculated as 5.9 days' gross pay at £79.71 per day.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded 13 days' gross pay at £79.71 per day. | Upheld | — | £1,036 |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded one week's gross pay. | Upheld | — | £239 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement and awarded 5.9 days' gross pay at £79.71 per day. | Upheld | — | £470 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,746
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.