Mr S Taylor v Mr Bit Limited 1402397/2019
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claims for unpaid wages, unpaid notice pay holiday pay and an unlawful deduction from his wages succeeds.[2]The Respondent will pay to the Claimant the total sum of £3390.62 which is calculated as follows. Unpaid wages for April 2019 £1607.71 Unpaid estimated overtime for April 2019 £470.84 one weeks notice pay £538.46 unpaid holiday pay £592.98 unlawful deduction from wages £180.63 Total net amount to be paid by £3390.62 Respondent to the Claimant[3]The Claimants claim that he was discriminated against on grounds of a disability in that he was dismissed is not well founded. The Claimant cannot rely upon an addiction to painkillers as an impairment because of the exclusion in regulation 3 part 2 of the Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010. The Claimant was not discriminated against on grounds of disability and the claim is dismissed.[4]The Claimant’s claim that he was discriminated against on grounds of race on the basis of his Scottish nationality is dismissed. The alleged Case Number: 1402397/2019 acts of discrimination did not occur during the course of the Claimant’s employment by Mr Bit Ltd but during previous employment with a different employer.[5]The Claimants claim for loss of future earnings is dismissed. The Claimant does not bring a claim of unfair dismissal and does not have 2 years qualifying employment.[6]The Telephone Case Management Preliminary Hearing listed for 2 January 2020 is vacated. Employment Judge Rayner Date 13 December 2019 Note: online publication of judgments and reasons The ET is required to maintain a register of all judgments and written reasons. The register must be accessible to the public. It has recently been moved online. All judgments and reasons since February 2017 are now available at: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions. The ET has no power to refuse to place a judgment or reasons on the online register, or to remove a judgment or reasons from the register once they have been placed there. If you consider that these documents should be anonymized in any way prior to publication, you will need to apply to the ET for an order to that effect under Rule 50 of the ET's Rules of Procedure. Such an application would need to be copied to all other parties for comment and it would be carefully scrutinised by a judge (where appropriate, with panel members) before deciding whether (and to what extent) anonymity should be granted to a party or a witness