Case 4107117/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Kaya v Professional Canine and Security Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4107117/2020
- Decision date
- 23 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Bradley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Kaya
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr N Kaya worked for Professional Canine and Security Limited as a store detective from 2 September 2020 until his last shift on 23 September 2020, with an effective date of termination of 24 September 2020. The parties agreed that 117.75 hours had been worked and that gross pay due was £1,074.67; after deductions for tax and national insurance of £40.56, the wages properly payable were £1,034.11. The respondent paid nothing on the relevant payday and said it was entitled to deduct £477.28, made up of £366 for one week’s notice and £111.28 for training, the lanyard and the facemask.
The tribunal found that no written contract or terms of employment had been issued to the claimant before the deduction was made, and that he had not signed a statement acknowledging the respondent’s terms and conditions. On that basis there was no relevant contractual provision authorising the deductions, and there was no prior written agreement or consent by the claimant. The tribunal also said that even if the notice deduction clause in the respondent’s standard terms had applied, it would not have justified deducting an amount equal to a week’s pay.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been employed for less than one month by the time the contract ended, so he was not bound to give one week’s notice under section 86(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It therefore declared the section 13 unlawful deduction complaint well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £634.11, that figure reflecting the £400 advance of wages already received by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under section 13 ERA 1996 was found well founded; tribunal ordered payment of £634.11, reflecting the £400 advance already received while employed. | Upheld | — | £634 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £634
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 23 ERA 1996
- section 24 ERA 1996
- section 86(2) 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.