Case 4106842/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Elena Matarranz Rodriguez v Krystal CSG UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106842/2023
- Decision date
- 30 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Elena Matarranz Rodriguez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Elena Matarranz Rodriguez presented the claim on 3 November 2023 seeking outstanding holiday pay and wages. The claim was not defended. The matter was listed for a final hearing to determine liability and remedy, and the claimant attended in person with a Spanish interpreter present. She gave evidence and relied on documents including payslips, bank statements, and her final payslip dated 16 August 2023.
Having considered the evidence, the tribunal was satisfied that the claimant was entitled to the sums claimed: £611.14 in outstanding holiday pay and £1,058.29 in outstanding wages. The claimant confirmed in writing that Krystal CSG UK Ltd should be found liable for those sums, and her wage slip identified that company as her employer.
On that basis, the tribunal ordered the first respondent to pay the two sums identified above. The second respondent, Cervus Facilities Management, was dismissed from the proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded this sum as outstanding holiday pay; the reasons do not identify a separate statutory provision for the award. | Upheld | — | £611 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal awarded this sum as outstanding wages. The judgment does not split the award further. | Upheld | — | £1,058 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,669
- across all upheld claims
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.