Case 4106275/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F A Iddon v Worq Group — 2023
- Case reference
- 4106275/2022
- Decision date
- 6 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F A Iddon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented his Employment Tribunal claim on 21 November 2022 complaining that he had not been paid two weeks' wages and holiday pay. The tribunal found that he had started work on 1 January 2021, was paid £450 gross per week and £375.20 net, and that the unpaid periods were the weeks of 22 and 29 August 2021. The parties agreed that, if the claim had proceeded, the unpaid wages would have been £750.40 net and holiday pay would have been £1,425.76 net.
The tribunal held that the claim was presented out of time. It noted that the statutory time limit had expired on 30 November 2021, that ACAS was not contacted until 29 April 2022, that the early conciliation certificate was issued on 9 June 2022, and that the ET1 was not lodged until 21 November 2022. Although it accepted that the claimant had waited to see whether payment would be made and had experienced repeated hospitalisations, it concluded that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that there was no good reason for the open-ended delay.
Independently of the time bar, the tribunal found that the claimant was employed by Chedstow Ltd and not by Worq Group. It attached weight to the payslips and P45 naming Chedstow Ltd, and it did not treat the claimant's Worq Group email address as determinative. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim because it was brought late and against a company that was not the claimant's employer. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint for two weeks' unpaid wages. The parties agreed the net sum in issue would have been £750.40 if the claim had proceeded, but the tribunal dismissed the claim because it was presented late and because it was brought against a company that was not the claimant's employer. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint for accrued but untaken holiday pay. The parties agreed the net sum in issue would have been £1,425.76 if the claim had proceeded, but the tribunal dismissed the claim because it was presented late and because it was brought against a company that was not the claimant's employer. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.