Case 6007949/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ralhp Acuna Velasquez v Mr Robert Silver Ortiz Rosas — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007949/2024
- Decision date
- 30 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Suzanne Palmer
Parties
3 namedMr Ralhp Acuna Velasquez
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningReserved judgment from a one-judge hearing concerning a Peruvian sous chef employed by a Peruvian restaurant in Hackney from 11 May 2024 until his resignation without notice on 29 June 2024. The claimant brought consolidated claims of harassment related to race against the head chef and director (the First Respondent) and unauthorised deductions, breach of contract, and failure to provide written particulars against the restaurant company (the Second Respondent).
The complaint of harassment related to race - confined at preliminary hearing stage to the alleged repeated use of the phrase 'Limena de mierda' [shit from Lima] - was found not well-founded and dismissed. The unauthorised deduction claim was upheld in respect of the pay period 1-28 June 2024: the respondent had applied a slightly too low NMW rate, the recorded hours differed from the rota, and the deduction in respect of utility bills as a contribution to accommodation was not authorised by anything in the (undelivered) written particulars or by written agreement under s.13 ERA 1996. The net award was £145.98.
The failure to provide written statement of particulars under s.38 Employment Act 2002 was also upheld. The tribunal awarded the minimum two weeks' gross pay (£1,075.36) rather than the higher four weeks' as it accepted Mr Dickinson's evidence that the omission was a genuine oversight in a small business going through financial difficulties; the claimant was aware of the key oral terms. The notice claim was not pursued. The total sum payable was £1,221.34, to be paid within 14 days. PDF was truncated from 68,969 characters but the dispositive paragraphs and reasoning on each upheld point were captured.
Claims and outcomes
4 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £146 |
| Other | Upheld | — | £1,075 |
| Breach of contract | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,221
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.