Case 6003058/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Rowe v Kyndryl UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6003058/2024
- Decision date
- 24 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Youngs Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Rowe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mr D Rowe, brought claims against Kyndryl UK Limited that were determined at a video hearing before Employment Judge Youngs on 17 October 2024. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it, the Claimant having less than two years' service with the Respondent.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed and was dismissed. No separate monetary award was recorded for that claim.
The Tribunal accepted the Claimant's complaint under regulation 10 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 in respect of two days in April 2024, declared it well founded under regulation 30, and ordered the Respondent to pay £750.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim; the Claimant had less than two years' service with the Respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The Tribunal declared under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 that the complaint about not being permitted to take rest under regulation 10 in respect of two days in April 2024 was well founded. | Upheld | — | £750 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £750
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- regulation 30 of The Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 10 of The Working Time Regulations 1998
- less than two years' service jurisdiction threshold
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.