Mr A Ali v HCB Franchising Ltd T/a Headcase Barbers and Others: 2201951/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant was an employee of the first respondent at the relevant time. The claimant had no contractual relationship with the other respondents.[2]The claimant was not self-employed, and any label given to him as ‘selfemployed’ by the first respondent was incorrect. Any sums paid to him represented his net pay and the first respondent is responsible for accounting to HMRC for any tax or National Insurance due on these amounts. Wages[3]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The first respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in the period 30 May to 13 September 2023.[4]The first respondent shall pay the claimant £5,100, which is the net sum deducted. The first respondent is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance. Notice Pay[5]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is wellfounded. Case No: 2201951/2024[6]The respondent shall pay the claimant £550 net as damages for breach of contract. Holiday Pay[7]The complaint in respect of holiday pay is well-founded. The first respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.[8]The respondent shall pay the claimant £1280. The first respondent is responsible for paying any tax or National Insurance. Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars[9]When the proceedings were begun the first respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. There are no exceptional circumstances that make an award of an amount equal to two weeks’ gross pay unjust or inequitable. It is just and equitable to make an award of an amount equal to four weeks’ gross pay. In accordance with section 38 Employment Act 2002 the respondent shall therefore pay the claimant £2200. Conclusion[10]The first respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the total of £9130 as set out above.[11]The claims against the second respondent, third respondent and fourth respondent are dismissed.