Claimant v Mazal Beauty and Wellness
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out because the claimant did not have the required 2 years' qualifying service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages in December 2024. The respondent failed to pay the claimant the full amount she was owed, constituting a breach of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant her contractual notice pay of 2 weeks. The claimant was entitled to notice pay and the respondent breached the contract of employment by failing to provide it.
Facts
Ms Williams brought claims against Mazal Beauty and Wellness including unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages, and notice pay. She had less than 2 years' service. The respondent made an unlawful deduction of £120.12 from her wages in December 2024 and failed to pay her 2 weeks' notice pay totalling £530.72. The hearing was conducted on the papers without a full hearing.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim due to insufficient qualifying service but upheld the unlawful deduction of wages claim and the notice pay claim. The respondent was ordered to pay a total of £650.84 gross, comprising £120.12 for unpaid wages and £530.72 for notice pay.
Practical note
Employees with less than 2 years' service cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims but can still succeed in breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages claims for unpaid amounts owed.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6004881/2025
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No