Case 6008041/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Jaworski v VAC Environmental services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008041/2024
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Jaworski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge recorded that the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal therefore decided that a determination could properly be made of the claim, or part of it, under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
On that basis, the tribunal upheld two money claims. It found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,100 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £300 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that the respondent failed to present a valid response on time and, under rule 22, determined the claim on the papers. It found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £2,100 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal recorded that the respondent failed to present a valid response on time and, under rule 22, determined the claim on the papers. It found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £300 gross. | Upheld | — | £300 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,400
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.