Case 4104817/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Laczynski v Ms A Kocela Interpreter Option A Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104817/2019
- Decision date
- 1 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Laczynski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Laczynski brought claims for arrears of pay, unfair dismissal, redundancy payment and race discrimination against Option A Ltd. The judgment records that the unfair dismissal and redundancy claims could not proceed because he did not have two years' service, and that the race discrimination claim had already been dismissed after earlier preliminary hearings. The hearing before Employment Judge M Robison therefore dealt only with the arrears of pay issue, which the tribunal treated as a breach of contract claim upon termination.
The tribunal found that the claimant worked as a contract worker supplied to Greenvale AP Ltd and was governed by a pay-between-assignments contract signed on 29 June 2017. The contract provided for a minimum hourly rate during assignments and minimum pay between assignments, but only if the worker remained contactable and reported availability each day before 10am. Assignment schedules later provided for overtime only after 48 hours averaged over four weeks, paid at time and a quarter.
Applying the contract terms to the payslips and evidence, the tribunal held that there was no entitlement to the overtime claimed because no four-week period exceeded the contractual 48-hour threshold. It also found no unpaid sums for October 2017, when the claimant was paid and took annual leave, and no entitlement to payment after his exclusion from Greenvale in November 2018 because he had not contacted the respondent as required and had taken annual leave and holiday in the intervening period. The unpaid wages claim was dismissed and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that this claim could not proceed because the claimant did not have two years' service. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal recorded that this claim could not proceed because the claimant did not have two years' service. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The reasons section records that the race discrimination claim had already been dismissed after earlier preliminary hearings; no merits reasons are set out in this judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The unpaid wages issue was treated as a breach of contract claim upon termination. The judgment also refers to unlawful deduction of wages in places, but the reasoning turns on the contract terms governing pay between assignments. The text contains inconsistent references to the termination date, referring to 21 and 31 January 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.