Case 4111730/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jose Antonio Le v No appearance and No representation The Bakehouse Scotland Ltd and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 4111730/2019
- Decision date
- 20 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Jose Antonio Le
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Jose Antonio Le presented his claim on 17 October 2019 seeking redundancy pay, holiday pay and wages said to be due after he had been laid off by The Bakehouse Scotland Ltd from 4 March 2019. He did not attend the hearing on 15 January 2020 and gave no explanation for his absence. The clerk tried the two mobile numbers he had supplied, but no contact was made.
The tribunal proceeded under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and dismissed the claim. On redundancy pay, Employment Judge R Gall held that the statutory lay-off redundancy procedure in sections 148(2) and 150 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not satisfied because Mr Le resigned on 10 July 2019 before giving a valid notice of intention to claim redundancy pay. The later letter dated 5 August 2019 could not amount to the required notice.
The tribunal also dismissed the holiday pay and wages claims. It noted that no details of the relevant basis of claim or the calculations had been provided, and there was no attendance by the claimant to give evidence or submissions. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim for redundancy pay following lay-off. The tribunal held that the statutory procedure was not met because the claimant resigned on 10 July 2019 before giving a valid notice of intention to claim; his letter of 5 August 2019 came too late. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for holiday pay said to be due during the lay-off period. The tribunal said no details of the basis or calculations were provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for wages said to be due. The judgment did not identify the legal basis or any calculation for this part of the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 148(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 150 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.