Cases2224654/2024

Claimant v Frontline Construction Recruitment Limited

15 May 2025Before Employment Judge K LoraineLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Partly successful£15

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The tribunal found by consent that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. The First Respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £14.52 that had been unlawfully deducted.

Holiday Payfailed

The claim for holiday pay was dismissed. No reasons are provided in this judgment by consent, but reasons were given orally at the hearing.

Breach of Contractwithdrawn

The claim for written itemised pay statements was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant during the hearing.

Otherfailed

The claims for stress, robbery, stealing, and violation of privacy under GDPR Act 96 Sect 41 were dismissed. These claims appear to fall outside the tribunal's jurisdiction or lacked merit.

Facts

Mr Stoica brought claims against two construction recruitment companies relating to unlawful wage deductions, holiday pay, pay statements, and other miscellaneous claims including stress and GDPR violations. The case was resolved by consent at a one-day remote hearing. The claimant appeared in person while both respondents were represented by their operations managers and directors.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims against the Second Respondent. Against the First Respondent, the unlawful deductions claim succeeded for £14.52. The holiday pay claim was dismissed, the pay statements claim was withdrawn, and various other claims were dismissed as outside the tribunal's jurisdiction or lacking merit.

Practical note

Even small wage deduction claims (£14.52) can succeed on their merits, while tribunals will dismiss claims that fall outside their statutory jurisdiction such as general stress claims or privacy violations.

Award breakdown

Unpaid wages£15

Case details

Case number
2224654/2024
Decision date
15 May 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
construction
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Claimant representation

Represented
No