Kitchen porters win £480 in unauthorised deductions claim but lose unfair dismissal
Two kitchen porters successfully claimed unauthorised wage deductions of £480, but their unfair dismissal claims were thrown out due to insufficient service.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #kitchen-porter
- #unauthorised-deductions
- #unfair-dismissal-dismissed
- #breach-of-contract-dismissed
- #failure-to-provide-pay-statements
- #failure-to-provide-written-particulars
Key facts
- Both claimants were employed as kitchen porters at the respondent's restaurant.
- The claimants did not have sufficient length of service to bring unfair dismissal claims.
- The respondent failed to provide written statements of employment particulars to both claimants.
- The respondent made unauthorised deductions of £480 from the second claimant's wages.
- The respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements to both claimants for specified periods.
- The claimants' breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) claims were dismissed.
Timeline
-
First claimant started employment
Mr Rassel commenced continuous employment as a kitchen porter at £12 per hour, paid fortnightly.
-
Second claimant started employment
Mr Radu commenced continuous employment as a kitchen porter at £12 per hour, paid monthly.
-
End of period for second claimant's pay statements
The respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements to Mr Radu from 25 March 2023 to 7 April 2023.
-
End of period for first claimant's pay statements
The respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements to Mr Rassel from 2 December 2022 to 9 April 2023.
-
Hearing and judgment
The tribunal heard the case in the respondent's absence and issued judgment, dismissing unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims, but upholding the second claimant's unauthorised deductions claim and ordering payment of £480.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimants were unfairly dismissed, whether the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages, and whether the respondent breached its duty to provide written particulars and itemised pay statements.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the second claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £480. However, the unfair dismissal claims were dismissed because neither claimant had the required two years' continuous service. Breach of contract claims were also dismissed. The respondent was found in breach of its duty to provide written statements of employment particulars and itemised pay statements to both claimants.
- Unauthorised deductions: £480 awarded to the second claimant
- No compensation for unfair dismissal or breach of contract
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees need at least two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.
- Employers must provide written statements of employment particulars and itemised pay statements from day one, or face tribunal orders.
- Unauthorised deductions from wages can be challenged in a tribunal regardless of length of service.
- If an employer fails to attend a hearing, the tribunal can still proceed and make decisions based on the evidence before it.
A short-lived job, a clear-cut deduction
Two kitchen porters brought claims against their former employer, Boiler & Company UK Limited, after their employment ended abruptly. The first claimant had worked since December 2022, the second since March 2023. Both were paid £12 per hour. The respondent did not attend the hearing, and the tribunal proceeded in its absence.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claims because neither claimant had the two years' continuous service required to bring such a claim. Breach of contract claims were also dismissed. However, the second claimant succeeded in a claim for unauthorised deductions: the respondent had deducted £480 from his wages without lawful reason. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay that sum. Additionally, the respondent was found to have failed to provide written statements of employment particulars and itemised pay statements to both claimants, as required by law.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent's absence at the hearing meant the tribunal accepted the claimants' evidence unchallenged. Had the employer attended, it might have explained the deductions or provided the missing documents. More fundamentally, paying wages correctly and providing written particulars from the start would have avoided the claim entirely.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that short-service employees cannot claim unfair dismissal, but they can still enforce other rights, such as protection from unauthorised deductions and the right to written particulars. For employers, failing to provide basic employment documents and making unjustified deductions can lead to tribunal awards even when the employee has only worked for a few months.
Similar cases
Site closure without process: redundancy dismissal ruled unfair
A former employee with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after his site closed and the employer failed to follow any redundancy process. The tribunal awarded over £44,000 in compensation.
Constructive dismissal and unauthorised holiday pay deductions: a partial win for former employee
A former employee succeeded in claims for constructive unfair dismissal and unauthorised wage deductions against Ryecourt Limited, but his disability discrimination and whistleblowing claims were dismissed.
Labourer wins unfair dismissal claim after being treated as self-employed
A labourer with three years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer summarily ended his employment due to lack of work, without following any redundancy procedure. The tribunal awarded £5,600 in compensation.
Café worker automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting right to written contract
A café worker with only six months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract. The tribunal awarded over £2,000 including injury to feelings for age discrimination.