Mr E Hachicha v Stronghold Global Finance UK Ltd: 2217096/2023 and others Mr E Hachicha v Stronghold Global Finance UK Ltd: 2217096/2023 and others
JUDGMENT
The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant £3,301.06 for unlawful deductions from wages and £1,020.98 holiday pay.REASONS
[1]These are claims for unlawful deductions from wages brought by a former employee of the respondent. His employment ended on 31 January 2024.[2]On 28th November 2023 he presented a claim for money due and unpaid in September and October 2023, case number 2206781/23. This was served on the respondent at their registered office on 8th January 2024. It was listed for hearing. The respondent did not file a response and on the 28th February 2024 Employment Judge Tinnion issued a judgement in default which was served on the respondent on the 11th March 2024 for £2,293.14. I was told today that respondent has now paid that.[3]Mr Hachicha's name also appears on claim number 2207029/ 24 brought by his former colleague Malak Bouita, but there are no details of his claim on it, and it may have been an attempt to link her claim to his.[4]On the tribunal file is another claim in his name, 2217096/ 23, but there are no documents on the file and it may be that this case number was allocated in error.[5]Claim number 2200729/ 24 was presented to tribunal 19th January 2024 and accepted on the 8th February 2024.[6]The last claim, 2207708/ 24, was presented on 27th March 2024 and served with the other two on 10th May 2024, with notice of a final hearing on 10th of August 2024.This is a claim for unpaid wages in December and January 2024, and one month’s notice.[7]On 19th June 2024 Employment Judge E. Burns proposed to the respondent and the three claimants with similar claims for unpaid wages and holiday (Bouita, Hachicha and Turki) that their 8 claims against this respondent should be heard together on 5th July 2024, that date having been listed before me to consider an application for reconsideration of a 10th May default judgement in Ms Bouita’s claim. The claimants agreed but the respondent said that they were in a position to address the claims and preferred to keep the original hearing dates. I directed that the all the claims be heard today to save time and costs.Relevant Law
[8]Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 provides: Effect of non-presentation or rejection of response, or case not contested 21.—(1) Where on the expiry of the time limit in rule 16 no response has been presented, or any response received has been rejected and no application for a reconsideration is outstanding, or where the respondent has stated that no part of the claim is contested, paragraphs (2) and (3) shall apply. (2) The Tribunal shall decide whether on the available material (which may include further information which the parties are required by the Tribunal to provide), a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it. To the extent that a determination can be made, the Tribunal shall issue a judgment accordingly. Otherwise, a hearing shall be fixed. Where the Tribunal has directed that a preliminary issue requires to be determined at a hearing, a judgment may be issued by the Tribunal under this rule after that issue has been determined without a further hearing. (3) The respondent shall be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the Tribunal but, unless and until an extension of time is granted, shall only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Judge. Discussion and Conclusion[9]The respondent has not responded to any of Mr Hachiha’s claims and there is no application to extend time, nor a draft response. The respondent does not seem to dispute, even today and represented, that Mr Hachicha has not been paid. The response is a month overdue. It is right to enter judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.[10]As for assessing the amount owed, it is not in dispute that Mr Hachicha was not paid for wages in November or December 2023, nor January, nor any holiday pay outstanding on dismissal.[11]At the hearing on 5 July I directed that the parties supply documents and any written representation on this in the next 14 days.[12]On 12 July the claimant sent the tribunal a number of payslips and a holiday pay calculation, duly copied the respondent’s CEO and Croner representative. These show a total of £3,301.06 for the unlawful deductions claim for the three unpaid months, and £1.020.98 for holiday pay outstanding on termination.[13]There has been nothing heard from the respondent disputing the figures. Accordingly those sums are awarded.[14]They are gross. The claimant is liable to income tax in the tax year he receives the money.