Miss C Roberts v Mr A Proto: 1600759/2024
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claim was issued in the Wales Employment Tribunal on 9 March 2024. The respondent has failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge has decided that a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it, in accordance with rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure.[2]The respondent failed to give the claimant written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 in the period June – December 2023.[3]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 27 November 2023 to 8 December 2023.[4]The respondent shall pay the claimant £1200.00, which is the gross sum deducted. The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance.[5]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is well-founded. 4.17 Rule 21 judgment – universal template. September 2017[6]The respondent shall pay the claimant £600.00 as damages for breach of contract. This figure has been calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant will have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.[7]The complaint in respect of holiday pay is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date the claimant’s employment ended.[8]The respondent shall pay the claimant £1828.00. The claimant is responsible for paying any tax or National Insurance.[9]The respondent must pay the claimant £3628.00 in total.REASONS
On 27 June 2024 the respondent applied for reconsideration of the Rule 21 judgment sent to the parties on 13 June 2024. The respondent did not copy the application to the claimant as is required under Rule 71 and 92 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. This application was not referred to Judge Moore until 15 August 2024. By an email dated 19 August 2024 Judge Moore informed the parties she was of the preliminary view that the application would not succeed because of the following reasons: The respondent has asserted the notice of hearing was sent to an incorrect address. The notice of claim and hearing was sent to the respondent at 2 The Manor, Brooklea Meadows, Little Sutton CH66 4AB on 12 April 2024. This is the same correspondence address the respondent used in his application for reconsideration. Therefore an incorrect address was not used and the address is by the respondent’s own communication, his current address. The respondent has not explained why he failed to lodge a response which was due well in advance of his hospital admission neither has he provided any medical evidence in support of his application. Judge Moore asked the claimant to comment on the application within 14 days and the respondent was given the opportunity to comment further as to Judge Moore’s points outlined above. The respondent did not make any further comments nor did he request a hearing. 11.6R Judgment – Reconsideration refused – respondent - rule 72 Case No: 1600759/2024 Foe the reasons outlined above there are no prospects that the judgment shall be varied or revoked. The application is refused.