Case 6008422/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Rotariu v Isoclean (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008422/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Rotariu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Phil Allen, sitting alone at Manchester on 27 November 2025, heard the claims of Mr A Rotariu against Isoclean (UK) Limited. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Rogerson, solicitor's agent. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided with the judgment.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages due in May 2024 and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,178.54. The Tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £1,124.97.
The written record attaches the standard notice under Article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, recording the relevant decision day as 9 February 2026, the calculation day as 10 February 2026, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages due in May 2024; gross sum ordered. | Upheld | — | £1,179 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; gross sum ordered. Layer 1 listing flagged Working Time Regulations; the judgment phrases this as unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,125 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,304
- across all upheld claims
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.