Joao Carlos Rodrigues Pestana v Techno Groundworks Ltd

​IN THE JERSEY EMPLOYMENT

AND DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL

IN THE

MATTER BETWEEN

JOAO

CARLOS RODRIGUES PESTANA

CLAIMANT

AND

TECHNO

GROUNDWORKS LTD

RESPONDENT

TRIBUNAL

JUDGMENT Reference: [2025]TRE117 Date of Hearing: 27 October 2025 Before: Advocate C E Whelan, Deputy Chairman For the Claimant: In person For the Respondent: Mrs Andrea dos Santos & Mr Antonio dos Santos

DECISION The claim for unpaid wages is dismissed.

REASONS 1. By a claim form received on 20 June 2025 the claimant brought a claim for unpaid wages.

2. His case was that he worked for the respondent as a skilled labourer from May 2024 to May 2025, and that he worked for 42.5 hours each week for a gross pay of £1,034 a week.

3. He said that he was not paid for the last 10 days of his employment and therefore the respondent owed him those unpaid wages.

4. The respondent said in reply that the claimant’s gross weekly pay was £935 and that he was contracted to work 40 hours each week.

5. The respondent said further that the claimant gave notice on 8 May 2025 and worked until 16 May 2025, and that at the time of his departure from the company he had already taken the whole of the paid holiday entitlement for the full year. It followed that the respondent was entitled to recoup the overpayment from the claimant. The respondent’s case was therefore that far from owing the claimant any wages, the claimant still owed the respondent the overpaid sum of £249.04, as shown on his final payslip. The respondent sought payment of that sum from the claimant by way of counterclaim.

6. On the morning of the full hearing, Monday, 27 October 2025, the registrar informed me that the claimant had given notice of his intention to withdraw the claim by an email of 16 September 2025. The registrar had replied the following day, 17 September 2025, saying that the claimant would need to attend the full hearing unless the respondent withdrew the counterclaim referred to above.

7. The counterclaim was not withdrawn, so the hearing proceeded.

8. I checked the position with the claimant and he confirmed that he had now examined the relevant documentation and was more or less satisfied that the response to his claim was accurate, and that so far as wages were concerned he had been paid correctly.

9. He went on to tell me that the respondent still owed him money for other reasons, namely that he had performed specific jobs for the respondent on the promise of payment, but that payment had not been forthcoming.

10. I explained that this was a different cause of action, which would involve different allegations and different evidence, and therefore would need to be the subject of a new claim, should the claimant wish to pursue it.

11. This leaves the matter of the respondent’s counterclaim, which can be dealt with quite shortly. I am satisfied that the documentation provided by the respondent shows conclusively that at the time of his departure from the company in May 2025 the claimant had taken the whole of his paid holiday entitlement for the full year. It followed that the respondent was entitled to recoup the pro rata overpayment from the claimant. In practical effect it was an advance payment made on the basis that the claimant would still be employed by the respondent at year end – a basis which no longer existed given the claimant’s departure.

12. I was satisfied that the respondent’s accounting was well maintained and accurate, and that in accordance with the final payslip issued to the claimant, the claimant still owed the respondent £249.04.

13. The claimant’s claim for unpaid wages is taken to be withdrawn in the circumstances described earlier, and could not anyway have proved successful on the evidence.

14. The counterclaim succeeds and the claimant is ordered to pay the respondent the sum of £249.04. Advocate C.E. Whelan, Deputy Chair Date: 29 October 2025