Case 8002229/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B McGoldrick v Renfrew Transport Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002229/2024
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Mannion
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B McGoldrick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because no response had been presented by the respondent. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim on the available material.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and awarded £812.24 gross for 71 hours at £11.44 per hour. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £6,864 gross, representing 12 weeks' pay at £572 per week.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £16,302. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £1,144 gross for 10 days' holiday pay at £114.40 per day.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment states an unauthorised deduction from wages for 71 hours at £11.44 per hour. | Upheld | — | £812 |
| Breach of contract | Judgment awards damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of 12 weeks' notice pay at £572 per week. | Upheld | — | £6,864 |
| Redundancy | Judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment calculated as 1.5 weeks' pay for 19 completed years of service at £572 per week. | Upheld | — | £16,302 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment states the respondent failed to pay 10 days' holiday entitlement at £114.40 per day. | Upheld | — | £1,144 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,122
- 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.