Mr F J Zaoui v Carleton Estates Ltd T/a Gipsy Hill Hotel: 1403745/2019

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 1403745/2019

Between

Mr F J ZaouiClaimant

Carleton Estates Ltd T/a Gipsy Hill HotelRespondent

Before

Employment Judge N J Roper

Not represented for claimant

Mrs G Carlton for respondent

Date 31 July 2020

JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Tribunal is that the Claimant partially succeeds in his claim for unlawful deduction from wages and the Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £18.00.

REASONS

[1]In this case the claimant Mr Fathi Joe Zaoui brings a monetary claim for unlawful deduction from wages. The respondent denies the claims.

[2]This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was by Cloud Video Platform. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing. The documents that I was referred to are in a bundle of 30 pages, the contents of which I have recorded. The order made is described at the end of these reasons.

[3]The claimant did not attend the hearing. He made a late application for a postponement yesterday by email dated 30 July 2020. That application to postpone the hearing was refused by the Regional Employment Judge with reasons given in the letter sent by email yesterday on 30 July 2020. I have heard from Mrs Grace Carleton who is Managing Director of the respondent on behalf of the respondent, who did attend the hearing. Case Number: 1403745/2019 Code V

[4]The claimant did not prepare a written statement of his evidence as ordered. Mrs Carlton did prepare a statement which I have considered. There was also an agreed bundle of the relevant documents. I found the following facts proven on the balance of probabilities after considering the whole of the evidence, both oral and documentary, and after listening to the factual and legal submissions made by and on behalf of the respective parties.

[5]The respondent owns and operates the Gypsy Hill Hotel in Exeter. The claimant is a chef. The respondent engaged the claimant to work as a relief chef on the evening of 13 July 2019. Mrs Carlton did so after considering the claimant’s qualifications and CV which included references from other hotels. Mrs Carlton has since discovered that the majority of these were manufactured by the claimant and were not accurate.

[6]The claimant was engaged on a self-employed basis at the rate of £18.00 per hour. He was also allowed accommodation and arrived on 13 July 2019 to stay overnight. Unfortunately he did not produce food to the required standard which resulted in complaints from diners. The respondent eventually had to refund six groups of diners who complained. Mrs Carlton has given evidence, which I accept, that the position was immediately so obvious and unsustainable that she terminated their relationship after only an hour.

[7]The claimant subsequently raised an invoice for five and half hours at £18.00 per hour totalling £99.00, and he brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages for that amount. The respondent disputes that invoice.

[8]Having established the above facts, I now apply the law.

[9]The claimant claims in respect of deductions from wages which he alleges were not authorised and were therefore unlawful deductions from his wages contrary to sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the Act”).

[10]Although the claimant was never an employee of the respondent, I am satisfied that the claimant was a worker within the meaning of s230(3) of the Act. He is therefore entitled to pursue a claim under the Act.

[11]Despite the fact that he did not perform his duties to the respondent’s satisfaction, the claimant did work for an hour, and in my judgment he is entitled to be paid for that hour. Given that the relationship was terminated at that stage the claimant is not entitled to recover for the hours claimed but not worked.

[12]In conclusion therefore the claimant succeeds in his claim to the limited extent of £18.00, and the respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £18.00