Miss R Tranter v 1000 Heads Salons Ltd: 1302069/2022
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The Respondent made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages in respect of £1,050.00 unpaid wages for January 2022, £769.20 unpaid wages for February 2022 and £1,538.48 in respect of four weeks’ unpaid holiday pay. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the gross sum (subject to deductions for tax and national insurance) of £3,357.68 in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted.[2]The Respondent did not issue the Claimant with a written statement of particulars of employment in breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £769.24 (two weeks’ gross pay). Employment Judge Platt _______________________ Date: 18 August 2022 Case number: 1302069/2022 1 of 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss R Tranter Respondent: 1000 Heads Salons LimitedREASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The basis for the application for reconsideration is that the Respondent’s ET3 was not taken into consideration because it was delivered late. The Tribunal dealt with the hearing on 18 August 2022 under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The Respondent had a final opportunity to file its ET3 response form by 1pm on 15 August 2022 (and comply with other orders made by the Tribunal set out in its letter of 8 August 2022) but did not do so. The Respondent submitted an ET3 on 17 August 2022 at 2pm. It did not comply with the other orders made by the Tribunal. No reason was given for the lateness of the ET3 response. The Respondent was notified of the details of the hearing on 18 August 2022 by CVP but did not join. The application for reconsideration sets out that the reason for the Respondent’s lateness was that it had commitments elsewhere at the time. This is not an adequate explanation. It has not explained what these commitments were or the importance of them. The Respondent now seeks to put forward its ET3 response form because it disagrees with the decision made. This is not a valid ground for a reconsideration. This is a case in which the parties and the interests of justice are best served by finality of litigation and in particular confirming the Tribunal’s judgment.