Miss E Kheirabadi v Mediscan Ltd: 2200018/2017
JUDGMENT
[1]The claims for contractual payments owed succeed in the sum of £635.[2]The Claimant is awarded costs pursuant to r 76(4) of £200 towards tribunal fees paid.[3]The total sum awarded is £835 Employment Judge Segal QC 30 May 2017 Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Case No: 2200018/2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Miss E Kheirabadi v Mediscan Ltd Heard at: London Central On: 25 May 2017 Before:REASONS
[1]The correct name of the Respondent is Mediscan Ltd (and not, as originally stated in the ET1, Mediscan Dental Laboratory). This was agreed and I permitted the amendment of the Respondent’s name accordingly.[2]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent between June 2016 and 1 November 2016 to promote for sale to dentists expensive scanners; the Respondent had a licence from the manufacturer to sell those items in England.[3]The Claimant brought the following claims for contractual payments owed , which succeeded to the extent stated:- 3.1. A claim for commission of £250 in respect of the sale for approx £20,500 of a dental scanner towards the end of her employment. The Respondent disputed this on the basis first that it had only received payment from the customer after termination of the Claimant’s employment; and secondly on the basis that she had not done the critical sales work. I determined that it did not matter when the payment was received from the customer, nor whether and to what extent a third party representative (from the manufacturing company) assisted in the sale process. The Claimant is entitled to £250 under this head pursuant to a written commission scheme with the Respondent. 3.2. A claim for something in the region of £100 for unpaid mileage expenses. This claim was not evidenced and I did not consider it proportionate to adjourn the hearing to see if further evidence could be obtained. I did not uphold this claim. 3.3. A claim for 2 untaken holiday days. This was not disputed and I award £140. 3.4. A claim for unpaid hours on three Saturdays. This was not disputed and I award (on the basis of approximately 2.5 days in total) £175. 3.5. A claim for payment of wages for the Claimant’s last day of work. This was not disputed in principle, but Mr Van Loenen queried whether the money had in fact already been paid (there was a payslip which seemed to refer to that money). I award £70, subject to the Respondent providing proof to the Claimant that a sum in this or a similar amount (between £69 and £70) has already been paid to her for that day’s work.[4]Those sums total £635. Fees and Costs[5]It became clear that this case had been wrongly coded as a Type B, rather than a Type A claim for the purposes of fees payable (because of uncertainty whether a claim for unfair dismissal was being made; it was not). The Claimant had paid a £250 issue fee and was in dialogue concerning remission of a £950 hearing fee.[6]I caused a replacement Notice to Pay to be issued in the sum of £140 – being the total payable of £160 issue fee, £230 hearing fee (£390), less the £250 already paid.[7]I made an order pursuant to the 2013 Rules, r 76(4) that the Respondent should pay the Claimant the sum of £200 towards fees paid/payable, on the basis that the Claimant had succeeded in most but not all of her claims.