Case 4121214/2018 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: S/4121214/2018 Held at Edinburgh on January 2019 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr Lucasz Szarafiniak v Compos (Scotland) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4121214/2018
- Decision date
- 10 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Meiklejohn Date
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: S/4121214/2018 Held at Edinburgh on January 2019 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr Lucasz Szarafiniak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reconsideration hearing on 9 January 2019 after the Respondent's ET3 response had been received four days late and the Tribunal had issued a default judgment on 12 December 2018. The Employment Judge treated the Respondent's letter of 16 December 2018 as an application for reconsideration under Rule 70 and for an extension of time under Rule 20. Applying the balance of prejudice, and noting a plausible explanation for the late response, the Tribunal granted both applications, revoked the default judgment, and accepted the ET3.
At the start of the hearing the parties identified which parts of the claim remained in issue. The Claimant accepted that he was not entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal because he did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108 ERA 1996, and he accepted that he had no entitlement to notice pay because he had been employed for less than one month and had not acquired the minimum notice right under section 86 ERA 1996. He therefore withdrew the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims, and those claims were dismissed.
The Claimant's race discrimination claim related principally to an incident on 10 August 2018, when he alleged that he had been threatened and assaulted by Mr Celik. After Mr Celik apologised, the Claimant accepted the apology and withdrew the race discrimination claim, which was dismissed. The Tribunal recorded that the Respondent's workforce included people of various races, including another Polish employee.
The remaining monetary issues were resolved by agreement. The Respondent accepted that the Claimant was entitled to be paid for hours worked during his employment from 15 July 2018 to 22 July 2018, and the parties agreed that wages of £289.71 were due for 37 hours at £7.83 per hour. They also agreed that half a day's holiday pay was due under the Working Time Regulations 1998, calculated as 4 hours at £7.83 per hour, amounting to £31.32. The Tribunal ordered payment of £289.71 for unlawful deduction of wages and £31.32 for holiday pay, making a total of £321.03 before deductions of tax and National Insurance if required.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Respondent accepted that wages were due for 37 hours worked during the period of employment from 15 July 2018 to 22 July 2018. The parties agreed the amount payable was £289.71, subject to deductions of tax and National Insurance if required. | Upheld | — | £290 |
| Holiday pay | The Respondent accepted that holiday pay had accrued during the Claimant's employment and the parties agreed that half a day's holiday pay was due. The agreed amount was £31.32, subject to deductions of tax and National Insurance if required. | Upheld | — | £31 |
| Unfair dismissal | Withdrawn by the Claimant at the hearing after he accepted that he did not have the two years' qualifying service needed for compensation under section 108 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Withdrawn by the Claimant after the Respondent's representative apologised for the incident on 10 August 2018 that was said to underpin the claim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | Withdrawn by the Claimant after he accepted that he was not entitled to notice pay because he had been employed for less than one month and had not acquired the statutory right to minimum notice under section 86 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £321
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 70 interests of justice
- Rule 20 extension of time
- balance of prejudice
- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regs 13, 13A, 14, 15A and 16
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.