Mr R Dowling v Alhambra House Hotel Ltd: 2200581/2019
JUDGMENT
The respondent has failed to pay wages to the claimant of £19.25 representing two hours’ work on 3 December 2018 and the tribunal orders the respondent to pay that sum to the claimant.REASONS
[1]The claimant started the hearing saying that he was owed a month’s salary of £1,600 gross. However, having discussed Box 9 of the ET1 (I provided a copy to the claimant), he said that he was owed £1,000 because the payment of £600 holiday pay have been made to him. This did not really make sense to me because £1,000 is not a multiple of a month’s pay, gross or net, however, I proceeded on the basis that the claimant said that he had not been paid his full pay.[2]The notice of hearing tells the parties that they should bring relevant evidence with them to the hearing. The claimant had some payslips with him, but one for June 2018, and he had no other evidence. He said that he could go and get copies of his bank statements to show that he had not been paid for all the time he worked for the respondent, and he gave evidence on affirmation that he had not been correctly paid, but I explained that this was the day of the hearing and it was necessary for me to make a decision. 4.17 Rule 21 judgment – universal template Case No: 2200581/2019[3]The respondent brought with it payslips which showed that the claimant had been fully paid for the six months and two days which he worked for the respondent from 30 May to 30 November 2018. His gross annual salary was £20,000 per year and he had been paid £1,667.67 in arrears for each month plus two days’ pay for 30 and 31 May. Mr Hunter gave evidence on oath that the claimant had been correctly paid. On a balance of probability I accept that the payslips were evidence that the payments were made to the claimant and so no pay is due.[4]The only period for which the claimant was not paid was two hours on 3 December (1 and 2 December were weekend days) when he was at work before he was dismissed for “dishonesty and attempted theft or fraud”. Although the reason for withholding pay may have made sense on the basis that the respondent had discovered that the claimant had not worked the full amount of time for which he had been paid in past months, I was not shown a contractual or written agreement that the respondent was authorised to withhold wages for that reason. Therefore, although I appreciate that the claimant considers this an unacceptably small amount of money, I have ordered that he should be paid £19.25 gross.[5]At the start of the hearing the claimant made an application to amend the claim to add a claim for wrongful dismissal/ notice pay. I refused the application on the basis that it had been made at the last minute, had not been made in writing and the respondent did not have a fair opportunity to respond to it at this hearing. Further, had I allowed an amendment the hearing would have had to have been rescheduled, which for the sake of one week’s notice pay was not proportionate. Moreover, on the face of it, the respondent had grounds to dismiss the claimant without notice because of suspected theft and therefore the balance of disadvantage in relation to the amendment was clearly going to be greater for the respondent as it was by no means certain that this part of the claim would be successful. It was therefore not in the interests of justice to grant the amendment.