Case 6020792/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Roddie v SDH Engineering Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020792/2024
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Roddie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant withdrew the complaint of automatically unfair dismissal and detriment for making a protected disclosure, and that complaint was dismissed on withdrawal.
By agreement, the holiday pay complaint was well-founded. The respondent was ordered to pay GBP 240, less lawful deductions of tax and National Insurance, for two days of accrued untaken holiday.
By agreement, the unauthorised deduction from wages complaint was well-founded for the period 18 to 24 November 2024. The respondent was ordered to pay GBP 577, less lawful deductions of tax and National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal and detriment for making a protected disclosure was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | By agreement, the holiday pay complaint was well-founded under regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for two days' accrued untaken holiday. | Upheld | — | £240 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By agreement, the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 18 to 24 November 2024. | Upheld | — | £577 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £817
- 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.