Case 4110566/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Ambrozy v Omni Taverns Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4110566/2021
- Decision date
- 3 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Ambrozy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr T Ambrozy was employed by Omni Taverns Ltd as a chef from 1 November 2008 to 10 May 2021. At the final hearing on 1 December 2021, he withdrew his claim for unlawful deductions from wages relating to accrued untaken holiday pay and his breach of contract claim for notice pay, and both were dismissed pursuant to Rule 52.
The remaining claim concerned an alleged unlawful deduction from wages arising from a reduction in hourly rate between June 2020 and 10 May 2021. The tribunal found that, in the context of the respondent’s pandemic-related trading difficulties, Anne Still emailed the claimant on 29 June 2020 requesting a reduction in rate to £11 per hour, and the claimant replied the same day agreeing. It found there was no evidence that he had been improperly pressured or threatened with dismissal if he refused.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s contract of employment was validly varied with effect from 29 June 2020 and that the £11 hourly rate did not fall below the National Minimum Wage. It found that the claimant was paid at the revised rate for hours worked from that date and, therefore, received the wages properly payable to him under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim under section 23 ERA 1996 was dismissed.
The claimant also said he had not been given written particulars of the change to his terms as required by section 4 ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had failed to give compliant statements of changes, but held that no section 38 Employment Act 2002 uplift could be made because the claimant did not succeed in the substantive wages claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for accrued untaken holiday pay was withdrawn during the hearing on 1 December 2021; the tribunal dismissed it pursuant to Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was withdrawn during the hearing on 1 December 2021; the tribunal dismissed it pursuant to Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant expressly agreed by email on 29 June 2020 to the pay reduction, found no improper pressure or threat of dismissal, held the contract was validly varied, and concluded the wages paid from July 2020 onward were properly payable. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 52 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.24 ERA 1996
- s.4 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.