Mrs M Piegza v Real Coffee Bag Company Ltd: 1301313/2022 and others
JUDGMENT
The complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed is struck out.REASONS
[2]Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years’ service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.[3]The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.[4]Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to bring such a complaint.[5]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.[6]Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out.[7]The claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment. Employment Judge Kenward Dated 10th February 2023 Case Number: 1301279/2022 Case Number: 1301280/2022 Case Number: 1301313/2022 Case Number: 1301314/2022 Case Number: 1303075/2022 Case Number: 1303076/2022 Case Number: 1303131/2022 Case Number: 1303132/2022 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS First Claimant: Ms Bialczak 1301279/2022 & 1301314/2022 Second Claimant: Mrs M Piegza 1301280/2022 & 1301313/2022 Third Claimant: Miss A Zmudzinska 1303075/2022 & 1303132/2022 Fourth Claimant: Mr L Cymermann 1303076/2022 & 1303131/2022 Respondent: Real Coffee Bag Company Limited Heard at: West Midlands (Birmingham) Employment Tribunal On: 6 June 2023 Before: Employment Judge Childe REPRESENTATION: First and second claimant: Not in attendance Third and fourth claimant: In person Respondent: Not in attendance Case Number: 1301279/2022 Case Number: 1301280/2022 Case Number: 1301313/2022 Case Number: 1301314/2022 Case Number: 1303075/2022 Case Number: 1303076/2022 Case Number: 1303131/2022 Case Number: 1303132/2022 2[1]The first and second claimants’ claims (case numbers 1301279/2022, 1301314/2022, 1301280/2022 & 1301313/2022) are dismissed under rule 47 due to their non- attendance.[2]The third claimant’s complaint under case number 1303132/2022 is dismissed on withdrawal under rule 52.[3]The four claimant’s complaint under case number 1303076/2022 is dismissed on withdrawal under rule 52.[4]The third claimant’s complaint (under case number 1303075/2022) that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from her wages by failing to pay her £975 gross, for the period 30 May 2022 to 17 June 2022, is well-founded. The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £975 gross. This claim succeeds.[5]The third claimant’s complaint (under case number 1303075/2022) that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from her wages by failing to pay her accrued holiday pay due on the termination of her employment is well-founded. The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £1001 gross, representing 7.5 days’ holiday pay. This claim succeeds.[6]The fourth claimant’s complaint (under case number 1303131/2022) that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from his wages by failing to pay him £1,109.85 gross, for the period 30 May 2022 to 17 June 2022, is well-founded. The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £1,109.85 gross. This claim succeeds.[7]The fourth claimant’s complaint (under case number 1303131/2022) that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from his wages by failing to pay him accrued holiday pay due on the termination of his employment is well-founded. The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £936 net, representing 10.5 days’ holiday pay. This claim succeeds. Case Number: 1301279/2022 Case Number: 1301280/2022 Case Number: 1301313/2022 Case Number: 1301314/2022 Case Number: 1303075/2022 Case Number: 1303076/2022 Case Number: 1303131/2022 Case Number: 1303132/2022 3