Case 4106433/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gordon Dyer v Renfrew Warehousing & Distribution Ltd and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106433/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Bradley
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard a single holiday pay claim that was brought initially against Renfrew Warehousing & Distribution Ltd, then amended to add Renfrew Transport Services Limited after the first respondent was struck off the register and dissolved in November and December 2023. It found that both companies traded as Always Freight Solutions and shared business premises and telephone numbers, but rejected the second respondent's case that it had never been the claimant's employer. The tribunal held that the second respondent remained, and had remained throughout the disputed period, the claimant's employer, and that there was no evidence of any asset or business transfer that would engage TUPE.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Single holiday pay / unlawful deduction claim under section 13 ERA 1996 and Regulation 16 WTR 1998. The tribunal found the second respondent remained the claimant's employer and ordered payment of £3,704.10 under deduction of any tax and national insurance due on that sum; the reasons state the claimant accepted the net version of that figure. | Upheld | — | £3,704 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,704
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.230(4) ERA 1996
- s.27(1)(a) ERA 1996
- Regulation 16 WTR 1998
- Regulation 30 WTR 1998
- s.224 ERA 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.