Miss T Nixon v Hotel Van Dyk Ltd T/a Legends Sports Bars: 1805381/2020
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1805381/2020
Between
Miss T NixonClaimantHotel Van Dyk Ltd T/a Legends Sports BarsRespondent
Before
Employment Judge KnowlesIn person for claimantNo appearance for respondentDate 16 November 2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The correct title of the Respondent is Hotel Van Dyk Limited trading as Legends Sports Bars, registered office Eyre Investments The Pitches Sports Club, Wickersley Road, Rotherham, England, S60 3PR.[2]The Claimant’s claim of unlawful deduction from wages is well founded. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of £142.18.[3]The Claimant’s claim for unpaid holiday leave on termination of employment is well founded. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant £824.91.[4]The Claimant is, under the Employment Act 2002 (s38), awarded 2 weeks’ pay because contrary to the Employment Rights Act 1996 she received no initial statement of particulars of employment from the Respondent. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of £383.68.[5]The total amount that the Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant is £1,350.77.
REASONS
[1]The Respondent has made an in-time application for reconsideration of the judgment on the following grounds:a. The Claimant was not entitled to unpaid wages because of clause 17.3 in the employment contract.b. The Claimant’s 2019-2020 holidays were not taken and subsequently lost although the Respondent would happily pay her 2020- 2021 accrual.c. The Claimant is claiming something she is not entitled to.d. The correspondence was sent to Legends Sports Bar but should have been sent to the Respondent’s registered office.[2]There is disputed evidence on whether or not the Claimant ever received her contract of employment and that could have been resolved had the Respondent(a) entered a response and(b) attended the hearing and produced evidence.[3]The award concerning wages relates to disputed evidence concerning a 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 February 2018 Case No: 1805381/2020 provision in a contract. See 3 above.[4]The award concerning holiday pay does not relate to 2019-2020 holidays. Any dispute concerning the amount of entitlement could have been resolved had the Respondent(a) entered a response and(b) attended the hearing and produced evidence.[5]There is nothing invalid in proceedings and correspondence having been served at the trading address at which the Claimant worked. The Respondent has not denied receiving any of the tribunal’s correspondence.[6]No explanation has been provided by the Respondent why they have not entered a response to the claim or why they failed to attend the hearing. No previous applications have been made by them.[7]Taking into account the grounds of the application for reconsideration and considering them in the round with the comments above, my conclusion is that the Respondent has had a fair opportunity to address the tribunal on any points of substance but failed to do so.[8]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked for those reasons.