Case 8001630/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Dyer v Renfrew Transport Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001630/2024
- Decision date
- 8 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Dyer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's wages were reduced by £720 on 22 September 2024, with the payslip describing the deduction as being for "insubordination". The claimant had not been told in advance that the deduction would be made, had not agreed to it, and did not know how the amount had been calculated. He raised a grievance, which remained unresolved.
The respondent asserted in its response that misconduct and the company handbook justified the deduction, but it did not attend the hearing, did not produce the handbook, and did not identify any contractual term authorising the deduction. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence and was not satisfied that there was any relevant contractual provision or written consent permitting the deduction. It therefore concluded that the deduction was unlawful and ordered repayment of £720.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the section 23 ERA 1996 claim well founded in relation to a £720 deduction from wages made on 22 September 2024. | Upheld | — | £720 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £720
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.