Case 4112063/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Gordon v JTM Build & Design Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4112063/2021
- Decision date
- 27 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Gordon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response had been presented, so the Employment Judge issued a rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal found that the respondent had underpaid the claimant by £22.95 per week for 10 weeks, amounting to an unlawful deduction from wages of £229.50 under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent was ordered to pay that gross sum, less any deductions required by law.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed within section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which the judgment describes as an automatically unfair dismissal not requiring two years' service because the reason for dismissal was that the claimant had alleged an infringement of a relevant statutory right. The claimant was awarded £554.40 as a compensatory award only, with no basic award due. That figure was calculated on the basis of £4.62 per hour at minimum wage for 40 hours per week for 3 weeks, and the judgment records that the recoupment regulations did not apply because the claimant had not secured any relevant statutory benefits. The sums were ordered to be paid within 7 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent underpaid the claimant by £22.95 per week for 10 weeks, resulting in an unlawful deduction from wages of £229.50 under section 13 ERA 1996. The award was for the gross sum, less any deductions required by law. | Upheld | — | £230 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found an automatically unfair dismissal under section 104 ERA 1996 because the dismissal was for alleging an infringement of a relevant statutory right. The award was a compensatory award only; the judgment states that no basic award was due. | Upheld | — | £554 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £784
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £554
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 104 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.