Case 4107831/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Pew v KFA Commercials Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4107831/2019
- Decision date
- 16 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Pew
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr C Pew, complained of unauthorised deductions from wages and sought damages for failure to give notice and a payment in lieu. The respondent said he had left without giving notice, accepted that deductions had been made, and argued that the claims were time barred. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from Ms Rae for the respondent, and reviewed the wage slips and correspondence about the March 2019 payment.
The tribunal found that the claimant had worked for the respondent from 15 October 2018 and last attended work on 27 February 2019. It accepted that he did not attend on 28 February or 1 March 2019, and that on 4 March 2019 the respondent instructed him not to enter the premises unaccompanied and to collect his tool box. It found that the claimant received a payment on 15 March 2019 which was less than expected, that deductions had been made from that payment, and that the claimant knew deductions were being disputed even though he did not know how they had been calculated.
On the wages claim, the tribunal found that the payment of 15 March 2019 was the relevant deduction date and that there were no unlawful deductions after that date. It held that the three-month time limit under section 23 ERA 1996, adjusted for early conciliation, expired on 13 July 2019. Because the claim was not presented until 23 July 2019, it was out of time and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. There was no submission that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the time limit.
On the breach of contract claim, the tribunal found that the last date on which the claimant was employed was 4 March 2019. Applying the relevant three-month limit under section 7 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994, adjusted for early conciliation, the deadline expired on 2 July 2019. As the claim was also not presented until 23 July 2019, and no reasonable-practicability argument was advanced, the tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear that claim as well. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction under section 23 ERA 1996 because the claim was presented out of time. The deductions in issue were made from the payment received on 15 March 2019; after early conciliation the adjusted limit expired on 13 July 2019, but the claim was not presented until 23 July 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction under section 7 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994 because the claim was out of time. It found the last date the claimant was employed was 4 March 2019, so the adjusted deadline expired on 2 July 2019, but the claim was not presented until 23 July 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 23 ERA 1996
- section 7 Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
- early conciliation time limit adjustment
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.