Mr R Pinnington v Mr Chris Hughes and others: 1600480/2017
JUDGMENT
[1]The Respondents did not attend the hearing, listed by Regional Employment Judge Clarke on 10 December 2017, to determine whether they should be permitted to rely on their late ET3 response form and defend the proceedings.[2]Under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 the hearing proceeded in the Respondents’ absence, on the basis that Rule 21 applied.[3]It is the decision of the Employment Judge sitting alone that: 4. the Respondents made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s wages; 5. the Respondents are ordered to pay the Claimanta. £382.50 for unpaid wages; andb. £80 for accrued holiday pay; Case No: 1600480/2017[6]the First Respondent harassed the Claimant in a text message with the comment ‘you are an Englishman working in Wales now’ (an act of harassment related to race (nationality)); and 7. the Claimant’s claim for compensation for injury to feelings in respect of harassment is upheld in the sum of £660. Employment Judge S Davies Date 16 February 2018 NOTE: Reasons were given orally at the hearing. In accordance with Rule 62 (3) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, no written reasons will be provided unless requested by a party at the hearing or in writing within 14 days of sending the written record of the decision.REASONS
[1]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because:[2]Following an initial telephone call to Tribunal staff by Mr Steve Bromley, (business partner of the First Respondent), the First Respondent notified the Tribunal of his non attendance at the hearing listed on 16 February 2018, by email on 15 February 2018 sent at 16:28;[3]This email did not specify whether the Second Respondent would be represented at the hearing and did not comply with Presidential Guidance for requesting a postponement, as no medical evidence or prognosis was supplied;[4]I instructed Tribunal staff to respond sending a link to the Presidential Guidance and asking for urgent confirmation as to whether someone else would attend on behalf of the Respondents. This email was sent on 15 February 2018 at 17:39 to the First Respondent, the ‘admin’ email contact for the Second Respondent and Mr Steve Bromley;[5]Prior to the hearing starting on 16 February 2018, I checked with Tribunal staff and no response had been received from the 11.6R Judgment – Reconsideration refused – respondent - rule 72 Case No: 1600480/2017 Respondents. The hearing proceeded, commencing just after 10am, under Rule 47 in the Respondents’ absence;[6]The First Respondent replied to the Tribunal by email at 11:10am on 16 February 2018, after the hearing had finished. No explanation was provided in that email as to why Mr Bromley or another representative of the Second Respondent had not replied prior to the hearing starting (either outside of or during business hours);[7]I note the First Respondent’s ill health but consider that the Respondents had opportunity to respond to the enquiry about attendance within working hours. In the absence of a response the hearing went ahead in accordance with the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.