Miss J Pranczk v Hampshire County Council: 1401464/2018
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant's claims are dismissed. The Respondent has paid the arrears of pay and accrued holiday pay claimed by the Claimant. There are no other claims in the proceedings that remain to be adjudicated by the Employment Tribunal.[2]The Claimant shall pay costs to the Respondent in the sum of £750 within the terms of Rule 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013 (as amended). This award of cost is made because of the Claimant's unreasonable conduct of the proceedings. ______________________________ Employment Judge Craft Date: 19 September 2018[5]Miss Connor confirmed that although the Claimant had not requested that her unused leave in holiday year 2016 / 2017 be carried forward, which she could have done, that unused leave had been re-credited to her annual leave account for the following holiday year. Miss Connor also confirmed that, although the Respondent had initially denied that the wages claimed by the Claimant were owed to her, the sum claimed of £69.23 had been paid into the Claimant's bank account to settle the claim on 17 July 2018.[6]Although the Claimant pursued no other claims the Tribunal noted that the Claimant had provided no evidence that she had undertaken a protected act to support the unparticularised allegation that she had been victimised for taking sick leave, or that she had suffered a detriment. The Claimant had been re-credited with the leave she claimed had not been carried over and there could have been no detriment to her.[7]The Respondent submitted that there were no claims which the Claimant could pursue in these proceedings and that the Claimant's claims should be dismissed. The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant had no further claims to pursue in these proceedings. This avoided the necessity of the Tribunal having to consider whether or not it had jurisdiction to consider the claims when they had been submitted out of time and it appeared to have been reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have submitted those claims in time. Therefore, there were no other claims in the proceedings that remained to be adjudicated by the Tribunal and the Claimant's claims are dismissed for these reasons.[8]After the Tribunal had confirmed its Judgment Mrs Perry made an application for costs on behalf of the Respondent. She submitted that the Claimant had conducted the proceedings unreasonably by continuing to pursue claims that had no merit after 17 July 2018, which was the date on which the alleged arrears of pay had been paid into the Claimant's bank account. She submitted that the Claimant should meet the Respondent's costs for all work carried out in preparing for the hearing from 17 July 2018 onwards and attending at the hearing.[9]The Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant had conducted the proceedings unreasonably by continuing to pursue these claims after 17 July 2018. The Tribunal was referred to a schedule / summary of the Respondent's costs (Exhibit C1) and, having considered those documents, it made an order for costs in the sum of £750 against the Claimant by reason of her unreasonable conduct of these proceedings. ______________________________ Employment Judge Craft Date: 28 February 2019 Case Nos: 1401464/2018 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: Miss J Pranczk Respondent: Hampshire County CouncilREASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked because the Claimant made two claims within the proceedings which have been dismissed for the reasons given by the Employment Tribunal in circumstances where the Tribunal may have had no jurisdiction to consider them because they were submitted out of time. The Employment Tribunal is satisfied that the Claimant's attendance at the hearing would not have altered that outcome. Furthermore the purpose of the reconsideration application appears to be to provide the Claimant with the opportunity to introduce new claims into the proceedings after the conclusion of them. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied for the reasons set out about that it is not in the interests of justice to reconsider the Judgment.