Case 8000597/2025 · Employment Tribunal
G McAdam v Clyde Waste Solutions Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000597/2025
- Decision date
- 21 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
G McAdam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 22 judgment issued on the available material because no response had been presented by the respondent. The claimant, G McAdam, brought claims against Clyde Waste Solutions Ltd in respect of an unauthorised deduction from wages and unpaid holiday entitlement.
The tribunal upheld both claims. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £784.00 gross, calculated as 49 hours at £16.00 per hour. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £256.00 gross, calculated as 16 hours at £16.00 per hour.
The judgment records a total gross award of £1,040.00. No separate findings on interest, injury to feelings, or other additional remedy were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £784.00, described as 49 hours x £16.00 per hour. | Upheld | — | £784 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £256.00, described as 16 hours x £16.00 per hour. | Upheld | — | £256 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,040
- 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.