Miss A Chiriac v AIR Grill House Ltd: 1402966/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The hearing was conducted by the parties attending by video conference (CVP). It was held in public with the Judge sitting in open court in accordance with the Employment Tribunal Rules. It was conducted in that manner because a face to face hearing was not possible in light of the restrictions imposed by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No.[2]Regulations 2020 , the parties consented and it was in accordance with the overriding objective to do so. 2. The respondnet has made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages, contrary to section 13 Employment rights Act 1996 of £150.00.[3]The respondnet will now pay the claimant the sum of £150.00 in respect of the unlawful deduction from her wages.[4]The respondnet failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of the main terms and conditions of her employment contrary to section 39 Employment Act 2002, and the respondnet must pay the claimant compensation of two weeks wages, being the sum of £520.00[5]The Total sum now payable by the respondnet to the claimant is the sum of £670.00. Case Number: 1402966/2020 Employment Judge Rayner Dated 18 December 2020 Judgment sent to parties: 14 January 2021 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 anonymised 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