Mr R Marsden v One Managed Security Ltd: 2216209/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]The tribunal orders the Respondent to pay £3,461.54 less any required deductions, for which it should account to HMRC, to the Claimant, within 14 days of the date of this judgment is sent to the parties.REASONS
[2]The claimant commenced employment with the Respondent as an Account Manager on 6 September 2023. His salary was £60,000 per annum.[3]On 22 September 2023 the Claimant was informed by his line manager that his employment would not be continuing and he was given one week’s notice of termination. This brought his employment on an end on 30 September 2023. This was confirmed in a letter of termination to him which he showed me.[4]Although the Claimant received a payslip and P45 in respect of his employment, he did not receive his pay. The payslip provided for a gross payment of £3,461.54 and a net payment of £2,689.32.[5]Following a period of early conciliation between 9 – 11 October 2023, on 1 November 2023, the Claimant presented a Claim (ET1) to the employment tribunal for his unpaid wages. The Claim was served by post on the Respondent at the address Capital Office, 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX which was the address provided by the Claimant. Case Number: 2216209/2023[6]The Respondent has failed to present a defence to the claim (called an ET3 or a Response)[7]The tribunal asked the Claimant if he had any email addresses for the Respondent and he provided two. When the tribunal has tried to email the Respondent we have either had a message saying the individual was absent on maternity or our message has “bounced back”.[8]I am issuing judgment in favour of the Claimant as I satisfied, based on what he has told me and the evidence I have seen that he is owed the payment.[9]I am not convinced that the Respondent is aware of the claim. If, having received this judgment, the Respondent becomes aware of the claim for the first time and wishes to challenge it, it has the option of applying, within 14 days, for a reconsideration of this judgment under Rule 71 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The Respondent will need to explain why it has not presented a defence and present evidence as to why the judgment should be varied or revoked.[1]The Respondent said in its application that the judgment should be revoked, because the final amount due to the Claimant needed to be adjusted to take into account the fact that he had kept equipment.[2]The Claimant has provided evidence of the following:(a) He returned the equipment and it was received on 26 September 2023(b) Mr Hayes agreed to pay the Claimant’s final salary in full in an email dated 12 October 2023(c) The Respondent issued him with a final payslip showing the amount he was owed, but did not pay it.[3]The Respondent owes Mr Marsden the amount that is set out in the judgment, based on the amount that was set out in the payslip. It has provided no plausible reason why it has not been paid when making the application for reconsideration.