Claimant v AJ Civil and Engineering Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not employed by the respondent for the minimum period of 2 years required by sections 108 and 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. As the qualifying period was not met, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and the claim was dismissed.
The tribunal found the claimant was a worker within the meaning of section 230 ERA 1996 and that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to section 13 ERA 1996. The respondent failed to pay wages owed for five 10-hour shifts worked at £16 per hour in the week commencing 04.10.2025, payable on 17.01.2025.
Facts
The claimant worked for a civil engineering company at £16 per hour. He was not paid for five 10-hour shifts worked in the week commencing 4 October 2024, which should have been paid on 17 January 2025. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages. The respondent did not attend the hearing.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment. However, the tribunal found the claimant was a worker and succeeded in his claim for unlawful deduction of wages, awarding him £800 gross for the unpaid shifts.
Practical note
Worker status provides protection for wage claims even where continuous employment is insufficient for unfair dismissal protection, and tribunals can proceed in the respondent's absence where appropriate.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6002255/2025
- Decision date
- 30 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No