ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8003177/2025 Hearing at Edinburgh on May 2026 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Javier Acosta v Fuegos del Sur Ltd — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Javier Acosta’s unlawful deductions from wages claim against Fuegos del Sur Ltd. Acosta worked as a manager of two restaurants from 1 August to 13 September 2025 under a contract providing £14.50 an hour and a share of tips. Following payments which the tribunal recorded as totalling £5,607.92, he sought an outstanding balance of £697.64.

The tribunal rejected the respondent’s time-limit defence. Acosta notified ACAS on 31 October 2025, received his Early Conciliation Certificate on 12 December and presented his claim on 23 December. The conciliation extension made the claim concerning ongoing salary payments timely. Claims concerning payments due in July were late, but the tribunal found that it had not been reasonably practicable to present them earlier while the respondent continued making payments towards the disputed sums. It also found that the claim had been presented within a further reasonable period.

Acosta’s calculation included £400 for bar remodelling work, £348.78 in expenses, £425 for overtime and £623 in accrued holiday pay, alongside wages and tips. The tribunal accepted that he had agreed to undertake separate remodelling work which may have been payable at £15 an hour. It could not establish whether that arrangement involved employment or self-employment. The basis for recovering expenses through an unlawful deductions claim was unclear, as was the contractual basis for overtime, on which his employment contract was silent.

The respondent provided no evidence explaining the basis of its payments, while Acosta’s calculations did not match the payslips. He claimed 288 hours for August and September, but the tribunal found that he had been paid for 355.68 hours. Although his entitlement to £623 holiday pay was undisputed, the tribunal could not determine whether that sum had already been paid. Given the unclear evidence and unproven calculations, it could not find on the balance of probabilities that an unlawful deduction had occurred. The claim failed and no monetary award was recorded.