[1]By consent, the name of the Respondent is amended to Glam Rocks Ltd.[2]The complaint brought by the Claimant under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded and a declaration is made to that effect.[3]The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of £3,318.06 beinga.£1,508.51 in respect of unpaid wages from 13 August 2021 – 7 September 2021 (125.5 hours @£12.02 per hour1); andb.£2,559.55 in respect of unpaid wages from 8 September 2021 – 11 October 2021 (177.5 hours @£14.42 per hour2);lessc.£750 paid by the Respondent to the Claimant on 11 October 2021.[4]In breach of Regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant a sum in lieu of holidays that they had accrued but not taken by the date on which the Claimant’s employment terminated as follows: Salary of £25,000 for 40 hour week[2]Salary of £30,000 for 40 hour week Case No -1602002/2021a.13 August 2021-7 September 2021 being 0.4 weeks’ holiday pay @ £480.77 per week for which the Respondent is ordered to pay her the further sum of £192.31; andb.8 September 2021-11 October 2021 being 0.53 weeks’ holiday pay @£576.92 for which the Respondent is ordered to pay her the further sum of £305.77 in this regard.[5]The Claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due on the sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay.
REASONS
[1]An application for reconsideration is an exception to the general principle that (subject to an appeal on a point of law) a decision of the Employment Tribunal is final.[2]Rule 70 ET Rules 2013 sets out the test on reconsideration which is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment. Pursuant to Rule 72(1) I may refuse an application based on preliminary consideration if there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[3]The importance of finality was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Justice v Burton and anor [2016] EWCA Civ 714 and Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16 in which Simler P said that a ‘request for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to seek to relitigate matters that have already been litigated, or reargue matters in a different way or by adopting points previously omitted. There is an underlying public policy principle in all judicial proceedings that there should be finality of litigation, and reconsideration applications are a 1602002/2021 limited exception to that rule. They are not a means by which to have a second bite of the cherry, nor are they intended to provide parties with the opportunity of a rehearing at which the same evidence and the same arguments can be rehearsed but with different emphasis or additional evidence that was previously available being tendered”[4]Having revieweda. my notes of the evidence given by the Claimant at the hearing on 3 January 2023;b. the witness statement of the Claimant;c. the documents from the Bundle, in particular the Claimant’s Schedule of Loss at [287];d. my judgment sent to the parties on 6 January 2023;e. the letter from the Claimant of 9 January 2023. I am satisfied that I took into account the evidence that the Claimant gave in relation to counselling, in reaching my decision not to award the Claimant further compensation for stress, inconvenience and distress arising from the unpaid wages and the need for the Claimant to undergo counselling.[5]The purpose of the reconsideration is not to provide the parties with the opportunity of adducing further evidence and there is a strong public interest that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation. ____________________ Employment Judge R Brace Date 10 January 2023 JUDGMENT and WRITTEN REASONS SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 11 January 2023 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Mr N Roche CASE NO - 1602002/2021 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss S Ayub Respondent: Glam Rocks Ltd UPON APPLICATION made by the Claimant by letter dated 9 January 2023 to reconsider the judgment under rule 71 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 dated 3 January 2023 and without a hearing.[1]By consent, the name of the Respondent is amended to Glam Rocks Ltd.[2]The complaint brought by the Claimant under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded and a declaration is made to that effect.[3]The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of £3,438.26 beinga.£1,628.71 in respect of unpaid wages from 13 August 2021 – 7 September 2021 (135.5 hours @£12.02 per hour1); andb.£2,559.55 in respect of unpaid wages from 8 September 2021 – 11 October 2021 (177.5 hours @£14.42 per hour2); lessc.£750 paid by the Respondent to the Claimant on 11 October 2021.[4]In breach of Regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant a sum in lieu of holidays that they had accrued but not taken by the date on which the Claimant’s employment terminated in the sum of as follows: 1 Salary of £25,000 for 40 hour week 2 Salary of £30,000 for 40 hour week CASE NO - 1602002/2021a.13 August 2021-7 September 2021 being 0.4 weeks’ holiday pay @ £480.77 per week for which the Respondent is ordered to pay her the further sum of £192.31; andb.8 September 2021-11 October 2021 being 0.53 weeks’ holiday pay @£576.92 for which the Respondent is ordered to pay her the further sum of £305.77 in this regard.[5]The total sum that the Respondent is therefore ordered to pay the Claimant is £3,936.34[6]The Claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due on the sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay.