Case 4108908/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Whitley v Xel Manufacturing Services Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4108908/2018
- Decision date
- 13 September 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Whitley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent had returned an ET3 stating that it did not defend the claim and did not attend the hearing. The claimant attended, lodged productions and gave evidence.
The tribunal found that the claimant started work on 21 April 2008 and that his employment ended on 7 May 2018 when the respondent ceased trading. He was unpaid for 48 hours of work, had not received notice of termination, and had accrued 29 days of holiday leave which had not been taken.
The tribunal ordered payment of unpaid wages, notice pay, holiday pay, and a redundancy payment. The redundancy payment was calculated by reference to the claimant's age, length of service and the statutory weekly pay cap, with the ordered redundancy sum stated as £7620.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for 48 hours of unpaid wages at £12.80 per hour. | Upheld | — | £614 |
| Breach of contract | Award for notice pay. The judgment header appears to state £5120.30, but the reasons calculate ten weeks at £512 per week as £5120 and order that sum. | Upheld | — | £5,120 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded for 29 days of accrued but untaken holiday at £102.40 per day. | Upheld | — | £2,970 |
| Redundancy | Awarded as 15 weeks' pay by way of redundancy payment. The text contains inconsistent statutory cap figures, but the ordered sum is £7620. | Upheld | — | £7,620 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,324
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 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.