Case 4104453/2018 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone) Mrs Ruta Stancikiene v Cibo & Vino Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 4104453/2018
- Decision date
- 14 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone) Mrs Ruta Stancikiene
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Ruta Stancikiene worked for Cibo & Vino Limited at its Nardini restaurant from around 9 August 2017, left for about four weeks in November 2017, returned in December 2017 and was dismissed summarily on 3 March 2018 after Mr Cozzolino saw her put tips into her pocket. The tribunal accepted that the respondents operated a pooled tips system, but found that the arrangement and the timing of any distribution had not been properly explained to her.
On the wages claim, the parties agreed that £363.75 was due for work done from 1 February to 2 March 2018. The respondents withheld payment because they said the claimant had committed theft, but the tribunal held that this was an unauthorised deduction under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered the sum to be paid in full. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been given a written statement of initial employment particulars when she started or when she returned to work.
The claim of automatically unfair dismissal failed. The tribunal found that the dismissal reason was the claimant's taking of tips, and that there was no evidence she had asserted any statutory right at the time, so the claim under s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996 could not succeed. The tribunal noted that no notice-pay or wrongful dismissal claim had been pleaded in the ET1, so it did not adjudicate that issue.
Under s.38 Employment Act 2002, the tribunal made an award because the respondents were in breach of the duty to provide a written statement of initial employment particulars. It found no exceptional circumstances making an award unjust or inequitable, but limited the award to two weeks' pay rather than four because the business was small, Mr Cozzolino said he was genuinely unaware of the obligation, and communication failures about the tips scheme had contributed to the dispute. On the figures accepted by the tribunal, a week's pay was £83.94 and the s.38 award was £167.88. The claimant's request for £50 for general inconvenience was not awardable. The total monetary award was £531.63.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The parties agreed that £363.75 was due for work done from 1 February to 2 March 2018. The tribunal held the respondents were not entitled to withhold it because of alleged theft and ordered payment in full under s.13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £364 |
| Unfair dismissal | This was the claimant's claim of automatically unfair dismissal. It failed because the tribunal found she was dismissed for putting tips in her pocket, not because she had asserted any statutory right. The judgment also records that no notice-pay claim was pleaded in the ET1. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Statutory award under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of initial employment particulars. The tribunal awarded two weeks' pay rather than four, after finding no exceptional circumstances and taking account of the respondents' small size and genuine ignorance of the obligation. | Upheld | — | £168 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £532
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- Chapter 2 of Part 14 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.