Mr BH Wlodarczyk v Shaul Bakeries Ltd: 1403631/2018
JUDGMENT
[1]Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 No response to this claim having been presented by the Respondent and on the information before the Employment Judge. The respondent has made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s pay in respect of the payment of holiday pay for the purposes of section 13 (3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Judge Goraj _____________________________ Date: 12 December 2018[2]Page 1 of 3 Claim No. 1403631/2018 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL BETWEEN CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENT Mr B.H. Wlodarczyk Shaul Bakeries Limited[3]JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL Held at: EXETER On Monday, the 13th May 2019 Employment Judge: Mr D. Harris (sitting alone) Representation: For the Claimant: No attendance For the Respondent: No attendance[5]The Claimant’s claim against the Respondent shall be dismissed. Page 2 of 3REASONS
[1]The Tribunal began the hearing by reminding itself of the provisions of Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which state as follows: - If a party fails to attend or to be represented at the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it shall consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.[2]The Tribunal noted that judgment in default had been entered against the Respondent and that no application had been made by the Respondent to set aside the judgment. The Tribunal further noted a recent letter from the Claimant in which he indicated that he did not intend to attend the hearing today because he was in work. Having noted those matters, the Tribunal took the view that further inquiries as to the reasons why the Claimant and the Respondent had not attended the hearing today were not required.[3]Having considered the information made available to the Tribunal from the Tribunal’s file, it appeared that the Respondent had paid the monies that were owing to the Claimant following the termination of his employment with the Respondent by way of resignation. It appeared that the monies had been paid by the Respondent to the Claimant in two instalments: the first during the early conciliation process involving ACAS and the second after the Employment Tribunal proceedings had been formally commenced. In the circumstances, it appeared to the Tribunal that the debt owed to the Claimant by the Respondent, being the subject matter of the claim, had been paid in full. Accordingly, the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent shall be dismissed.