Claimant v Jashoda Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that Mr Posa worked an average of 45 hours per week (405 hours total) between 13 November 2024 and 12 January 2025 based on rotas and contemporaneous WhatsApp messages. He should have been paid £4,633.20 gross at £11.44 per hour but received only £2,554.88. The respondent therefore made an unauthorised deduction of £2,078.32.
The tribunal found that Mr Posa was entitled to a share of the 12.5% service charge collected on restaurant sales. Based on estimated restaurant sales of £67,500, generating £8,437 in service charge, and dividing this equally among 9 eligible staff, Mr Posa was entitled to £937.44, less £70 cash tips already received, for a total deduction of £867.44.
The respondent admitted failing to provide itemised pay statements. The tribunal found this breach and awarded the claimant two weeks of unnotified deductions (the period within 13 weeks before the claim was filed), calculated at £479.61 under section 12(4) ERA 1996.
Facts
Mr Posa worked as a bar manager at The Ravensbury restaurant from 13 November 2024 to 12 January 2025. He was paid £2,554.88 total during this period but claimed he worked approximately 45 hours per week at £11.44 per hour and was not provided with pay slips or a written contract until 1 January 2025. He also claimed he did not receive his share of service charges. He resigned on 12 January 2025 after his hours were reduced to 19-20 per week, having complained via WhatsApp that he had effectively been paid only £7 per hour.
Decision
The tribunal found in favour of Mr Posa on all claims. It accepted he worked 405 hours based on rotas and contemporaneous WhatsApp evidence showing his complaint about reduced hours. He was awarded £2,078.32 for unpaid wages, £867.44 for unpaid service charge (calculated as an equal share among 9 eligible staff), and £479.61 for two weeks of unnotified deductions due to the respondent's failure to provide itemised pay statements.
Practical note
Where an employer fails to provide pay slips or operate a clock-in system, the tribunal will accept rota evidence and contemporaneous communications as proof of hours worked, placing the evidential burden on the employer to disprove the claim with documentary evidence such as timesheets or CCTV.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6010808/2025
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Jashoda Ltd
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Bar manager
- Service
- 2 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No