Case 6024012/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Kostrzewa v CALIS MCR Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6024012/2025
- Decision date
- 25 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Kostrzewa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Eeley heard the case at Manchester on 15 January 2026. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal considered a complaint that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant holiday pay in accordance with regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The tribunal found the holiday pay complaint to be well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £3,011.96, which the judgment records as reflecting 5.6 weeks' net pay and the net value to the claimant of the amount due.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard notice. A statutory interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 was attached, with the relevant decision day recorded as 25 March 2026.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Complaint of holiday pay well-founded; respondent failed to pay in accordance with regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Award reflects 5.6 weeks' net pay. | Upheld | — | £3,012 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,012
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.