Mr A Chaudhry v Marshall 247 Services Ltd (in liquidation) and others: 1802952/2022

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 1802952/2022

Between

In personClaimant

No attendance or representationRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Cox

Date 5 December 2022

REASONS

[1]None of the Respondents entered a response to the claim. There was a Hearing on 7 November 2022 at which the Claimant only attended. He submitted a witness statement, gave further oral evidence and submitted documentary evidence. On the basis of that evidence, the Tribunal reached the following conclusions. Respondents

[2]The Claimant provided no evidence to indicate that he was employed by anyone other than the First Respondent. The claims against the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents were therefore dismissed. Unfair dismissal

[3]The Claimant was dismissed on 8 April 2022, when Mr Butt of the First Respondent told him during a telephone conversation that there was no more work for him. The reason for the Claimant’s dismissal was that he had been complaining that he had not been paid correctly, that is, that the Respondent was making unauthorised deductions from his wages. The dismissal was therefore unfair under Section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

[4]The Claimant had completed one complete year’s continuous employment over the age of 41 at the effective date of termination of his employment and his week’s pay was £399. His basic award of compensation for unfair dismissal was therefore 1.5 x £399 = £598.50.

[5]In terms of the compensatory award, the Claimant confirmed that he was now running his own company and was not seeking employment as an employee. The Tribunal therefore awarded him no compensation for loss of statutory rights. The Claimant confirmed that he is now receiving income from his own business which he agreed was around £30 net per week less than what his weekly wages should have been with the First Respondent. He limited his claim to 52 weeks’ loss of earnings. His compensatory award was therefore £30 x 52 = £1,560.

[6]The Tribunal made a total award of compensation for unfair dismissal of £2,158.50. Detriments

[7]The Tribunal accepted the Claimant’s evidence that the First Respondent subjected the Claimant to detriments on the ground that he refused to forego the right to holidays, in breach of Section 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He was suspended from work on three occasions: from 1 to 30 April 2021, from 1 September to 31 October 2021 and from 1 February to 7 April 2022. The First Respondent imposed these lengthy suspensions without notice, without paying the Claimant and without giving the Claimant any reason for his suspension. When the Claimant complained about his treatment, he was ignored These amounted to serious detriments that led to the Claimant feeling extremely upset, angry and disrespected.

[8]In the light of these findings, the Tribunal accepted the Claimant’s uncontested claim that he should be awarded compensation of £18,000, which is around the middle of the middle band laid down in the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No. 2)

[2002] EWCA Civ 1871

. Unauthorised deductions

[9]The Claimant was employed by the First Respondent from 29 July 2020 to 8 April 2022. On the basis of the Claimant’s evidence, the Tribunal found that the First Respondent had guaranteed him 42 hours’ work a week. He was entitled to be paid at the national minimum wage rate of £8.72 an hour for the 34-week period 29 July 2020 to 30 March 2021, £8.91 an hour for the 52-week period from 1 April 2021 to 30 March 2022 and £9.50 an hour for the week of 1 to 8 April 2022. He received payments totalling £8,753.80 during his employment.

[10]The Tribunal calculated the amount of the unauthorised deductions from his wages as follows: 34 x 42 @ £8.72 £12,452.16 52 x 42 @ £8.91 £19,459.44 1 x 42 @ £9.50 £399.00 sub-total £32,310.60 less wages received £8,753.80 balance £23,556.80

[11]The Tribunal therefore ordered the First Respondent to pay the Claimant £23,556.80 in respect of those deductions. Breach of contract

[12]The Tribunal accepted the Claimant’s evidence that the First Respondent had agreed to reimburse the Claimant for £200 he spent on purchasing a uniform and that it failed to do so. He also incurred travel expenses of £438.04 in the course of his employment which the First Respondent failed to reimburse. The Tribunal found that the First Respondent had breached the Claimant’s express and implied contractual rights to be reimbursed for these expenses and ordered it to pay the Claimant damages of £638.04. Written statement of terms

[13]The Tribunal accepted the Claimant’s evidence that the First Respondent failed to provide the Claimant with a written statement of his main terms and conditions of employment, despite his repeated requests that it should do so. As the First Respondent failed to respond to the Claimant’s repeated requests the Tribunal considered it just and equitable to award the Claimant the higher amount of four weeks’ pay for that failure (Section 38(3) of the Employment Act 2002). The Tribunal therefore ordered the First Respondent to pay the Claimant additional compensation of 4 x £399 = £1,596. Other claims

[14]The Claimant agreed to withdrawal all other claims and these were therefore dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.

[1]At a Hearing on 7 November 2022 at which the Claimant alone attended, the Tribunal reached a decision on the claim. The Judgment was sent to the parties on that date. The claims against all but the First Respondent were dismissed. Some of the claims against the First Respondent succeeded. The Claimant withdrew the remaining aspects of his claim against the First Respondent at the Hearing and these were dismissed on withdrawal.

[2]On 10 November 2022 the Claimant applied for Written Reasons for the Judgment and these were issued to the parties on 13 December 2022. On 18 December 2022 the Claimant applied for the Judgment to be reconsidered. The Tribunal has considered that application under Rule 72 of its Rules of Procedure.

[3]The basis of the Claimant’s application is that the Tribunal’s Judgment and Reasons are “generalised, narrow and insufficient” and “don’t meet the requirements of insolvency service and simply leaving me on the respondent’s own plan”. He believes that the Tribunal “ignored in addressing and ordering and meeting the requirements of the insolvency service when the Employment Tribunal was aware the Respondent’s voluntary liquidation”. In summary, the Claimant’s concern appears to be that the Tribunal’s Judgment and Reasons do not give the information required by the Case No. 1802952/2022 Insolvency Service before it can make payments to the Claimant from the National Insurance Fund.

[4]The Claimant has attached to his application two letters sent to him by the Insolvency Service. The first letter, dated 3 December 2022, asks for details of two matters that were covered by the Judgment, namely the claim for unauthorised deductions and the basic award for unfair dismissal. These details appear in the Reasons sent to the parties on 13 December 2022. The letter also mentions holiday pay, but the Claimant withdrew his claim for holiday pay at the Hearing. The second letter, dated 15 December 2022, states that the Service cannot pay the Claimant redundancy pay, holiday pay and notice pay because it has been unable to certify the Claimant’s employment details with the Respondent’s Insolvency Practitioner. The Claimant did not include a claim for a redundancy payment in his Tribunal claim. He withdrew claims for holiday pay and notice pay at the Hearing.

[5]The Tribunal is satisfied that the Judgment correctly records the findings it made at the Hearing. There is no reason to believe that it is necessary in the interests of justice to amend the Judgment. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Reasons it has issued correctly record the reasons for those findings in a way that complies with Rule 62 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

[6]As the Tribunal does not consider there is any reasonable prospect of its original Judgment being varied, the Claimant’s application for reconsideration is refused.