Mr E Williams v Old Macmillan Company Ltd: 1401994/2021
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaints of unlawful deductions of wages arising out of:-a. a claim for a deduction of rent; andb. a failure to pay for work carried out in relation to takeaways are not well founded and are dismissed.[2]The following complaints which were not determined at the hearing are reserved to be determined at a rearranged hearing to be listed before me:a. failure to pay notice pay;b. failure to pay wages for February 2022.c. failure to pay holiday pay. Employment Judge Lambert Date 14th March 2022 Amended JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 08 June 2022 By Mr J McCormick FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Case No: 1401994/2021 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr E Williams Respondent: Old McMillan Company Limited Heard at: Remotely by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) On: 10th June 2022 Before: Employment Judge Lambert Representation Claimant: Did not attend Respondent: Mr Cosgrove, General ManagerREASONS
[1]At the outset of the hearing, the Respondent’s representative appeared via telephone. The Claimant did not attend. I directed the video clerk to make enquiries of the Claimant. The Claimant suggested to the clerk that he had not received notice of the hearing. From the file, I could see that the Case Management Order was sent to the parties on 16th March 2022. I checked the email address from the email with that set out on the Claim Form and confirmed they were the same. I was satisfied that the Claimant had received notice.[2]I requested the clerk to contact the Claimant to ascertain whether he would attend the hearing, or at least attend to make an application for postponement. The clerk informed me after a short period that he had spoken with the Claimant and he had declined to attend.[3]The Respondent’s representative confirmed that he wanted to proceed with the hearing today because this case had been adjourned once from March 2022 and it was prejudicial to the Respondent Company to have any further delay. Case No: 1401994/2021 10.2 Judgment - rule 61[4]I was satisfied that suitable enquiries had been made under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal rules of procedure and, in accordance with over-riding objective, it was appropriate to proceed with the case in order to deal with this case in a proportionate manner to the complexity and importance of this issues; to avoid delay and to save expense.[5]On hearing the Respondent’s uncontested evidence, I made the following findings of fact relevant to each claim: Notice Pay Factsa. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent until he left by resignation with immediate effect on 28th February 2021 (“the Termination Date”).b. The Claimant had received payment up until the Termination Date. Findingc. The Claimant was not entitled to any notice pay. Wages for February 2021 Factsd. The Respondent produced a wage slip showing payment of wages for February 2021. Findinge. The Claimant received payment for February 2021. Holiday Pay Factsf. The Respondent’s evidence was that from the dates the Claimant worked, he was entitled to 13 days’ pay. The Respondent confirmed that the Claimant had taken a period of between 20th October 2021 and 4th November 2021 as holiday. This extinguished any entitlement. Findingg. The Claimant was not entitled to any payment for accrued but untaken annual leave. Conclusion Case No: 1401994/2021 10.2 Judgment - rule 61Conclusion
[6]All of the claims raised by the claimant are not well founded and will be dismissed.