Claimant v Mr M Aslam

Claim not yet struck out. Claimant given final opportunity to specify dates, hours and amounts of unpaid wages claimed (2,575 hours total alleged). Unless complies with order within 7 days, claim will be struck out without further procedure under rule 39.

Claimant conceded he was paid in lieu of annual leave entitlement for the last year of employment. No information provided to support any other claim for holiday pay. Tribunal found claim had no prospects of success.

Claim regarding rest breaks wholly lacking in specification. Claimant only suggested he had to work throughout unspecified shifts with no break. Respondent's position was claimant entitled to 30-minute paid break. Tribunal found no prospects of success on current pleadings.

Claim related only to allegation that on unspecified occasions claimant required to deal with deliveries while female staff remained at till. Respondent argued material difference as claimant's English meant female staff should do customer-facing duties. Lack of specification and respondent's position led tribunal to find no prospects of success.

Information provided was vague and unspecified. No indication of basis for protected disclosure, to whom made, when made, or what detriment suffered. Tribunal found insufficient to demonstrate any prospects of success.

Claimant's suggestion of claim regarding failure to allow paternity leave was woefully unspecified. Questions in tribunal order not answered. Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to determine such claim.

Claimant failed to answer questions regarding redundancy and failed to say whether he accepted another staff member recruited to replace him. Tribunal found claim hopeless.