A kitchen worker at a Chinese restaurant been awarded just under £2,500 for unpaid wages and holiday pay after taking his claim to the employment tribunal.

Zizhe Dai had used an agency to apply for a job as a chef at Mrs Yang’s restaurant on North Quay, Douglas.

He was paid a salary of £21,000 a year and provided with accommodation, for which the rent - which included utility bills - was deducted from his wages.

It turned out, however, that Mr Dai was not a chef and was therefore allocated kitchen duties such as washing up.

Giving evidence through an interpreter, he said that when hired he stated could do some cooking, but he helped out generally in the kitchen washing dishes and progressing to helping prepare food.

Respondent Mrs Li said that they had been kind to Mr Dai in providing cheap accommodation, and meals at work, keeping him on in the kitchen and giving him training - and the tribunal chairman agreed that they appear to have acted ‘more than reasonably’.

Mrs Li confirmed that wages were due for the period April 10 to May 8 last year but had not paid them because she maintained that Mr Dai owed rent and that the last electric bill was very high and so he should pay towards it.

The rent for Mr Dai’s first property was £300 including utility bills per month which was later reduced to £150 per month. When he moved to a second property the rent was £480 per month.

He said that he had paid Mr Li £600 rent for the period March 25 to May 8 and insisted that he didn't owe anything for utility bills as it had been agreed that these were included in the rent.

When asked why the electricity bill was so much higher - £1,206.66 - for the 91 days for November 28 2023 to February 27 2024, Mr Dai said that the accommodation was for two people and the other person was using electric as well.

Chairman of the tribunal, Felicity Kniveton said she did not have jurisdiction to determine any claim there might be over rent and unpaid bills under any verbal agreement that the parties may have agreed.

And nor could she determine any issues that Mrs Li may have had about Mr Dai's capabilities or status as a worker.

She said there were conflicting views over the hours that Mr Dai actually worked, and she was not convinced that he had worked 50 hours a week as he had claimed.

Nevertheless, the tribunal awarded him £2,408 for five weeks and two days’ pay plus £79,12 for unused holiday.

The chairman had the power to pay an additional sum of up to the equivalent of four weeks’ pay but found it was not just and equitable to do so in this case as Mr Dai had chosen to leave their employment, had given two weeks’ notice as required and has now obtained work elsewhere.