Case 4108054/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Froncova v Represented by Iain Smith, Director of the — 2021
- Case reference
- 4108054/2021
- Decision date
- 28 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Froncova
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M Froncova and Mr K Gocal did not attend the hearing and were not represented. The tribunal checked that notice of hearing had been sent to the claimants by email, which was their preferred method of communication, on 9 March 2021. The clerk then sent six further emails between 11 and 18 May 2021 about the hearing arrangements and a Cloud Video Platform test, and no response was received.
During the hearing, the tribunal located a late email from one of the claimants saying that 'the situation has changed' and that they could not be on the video chat at that time. No reason for non-attendance was given and no postponement was requested. In those circumstances, the tribunal dismissed both claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The reasons do not determine the substantive wage or working time issues.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reasons do not describe the underlying allegation; this classification is inferred from the GOV.UK case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The reasons do not describe the underlying allegation; this classification is inferred from the GOV.UK case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | This covers the written pay statement element of the GOV.UK listing; the reasons do not separately analyse that issue. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.