Mr S Edwards and Miss L Su v S’Investec LLC and others: 1405522/2023 and 1405523/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]On its own initiative, the Tribunal proposed to add the Third Respondent as a party to the proceedings under rule 35 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because it appeared that there were issues between the Third Respondent and the Claimants which it was in the interests of justice to have determined in these proceedings. The parties agreed to that course of action.[2]Neither of the Claimants had a contractual relationship with either of the first two Respondents and it follows that they were not employees or workers of either the First or the Second Respondent at the relevant time. The claims against the First and Second Respondents are accordingly dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine them.[3]The First Claimant did not present his complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract (notice pay) within the applicable time limit, but it was not reasonably practicable for him to do so. The claims were presented within a further reasonable period and will therefore proceed.[4]Both Claimants were employees and workers of the Third Respondent at the relevant time.[5]Both Claimants’ complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages are well-founded.[6]Both Claimants’ complaints of breach of contract are well-founded.[7]The Third Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and it is just and equitable to increase the compensation award payable to both Claimants by 10% in accordance with section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[8]When the proceedings began, the Third Respondent was in breach of its duty to provide both Claimants with a written statement of employment particulars. There are no exceptional circumstances that would make an award of an amount equal to two weeks’ gross pay unjust or inequitable. It is just and equitable to make an award of an amount equal to four weeks’ gross pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002.[9]The Third Respondent shall pay the First Claimant the agreed sum of £16,258.20 in respect of all his claims.[10]The Third Respondent shall pay the Second Claimant the total sum of £21,326.74*, comprising:a. the agreed sums of £15,863.99 for unauthorised deductions and £1,185.77 for breach of contract (notice pay);b. £1,704.98 uplift for failure to comply with the Acas Code;c. £2,572 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars (four weeks’ gross pay, subject to the statutory cap of £643 per week for 2023/24). * This figure differs slightly from that given in the oral judgment because the uplift for failure to comply with the Acas Code does not apply to the award for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars – section 207A(5) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.