Miss L Collaguazo Benalcazar v The London Onyx Ltd T/a Dubai Lounge: 2300655/2022
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2300655/2022
Between
Miss L Collaguazo BenalcazarClaimantThe London Onyx Ltd T/a Dubai LoungeRespondent
Before
Employment Judge PritchardNo appearance for claimantDate 3 October 2022
JUDGMENT
[1]The correct name of the Respondent is The London Onyx Limited trading as Dubai Lounge and the title to these proceedings is amended accordingly.[2]The Claimant’s claims under this case number are dismissed in their entirety.
REASONS
[1]By way of an ET1 presented on 18 February 2022, the Claimant claimed unfair dismissal and unpaid wages. The Respondent resisted the claims.[2]By 10.00 am today, the Respondent’s representative, Mr Oyegbite, had connected to the video platform and was ready to proceed to defend the claims. The Claimant did not attend. Upon my instruction, the Clerk to the Tribunal tried to make telephone contact with the Claimant but without success. The Clerk was able to confirm to me that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to both parties by email and that the email address used to send the Notice of Hearing to the Claimant was that shown on her ET1 form.[3]I took a few moments discussing the correct identity of the Respondent with Mr Oyegbite.[4]Mr Oyegbite went on to tell me that he had no record of the Claimant having worked for the Respondent (and referred to a number of payroll and clocking records sent to the Tribunal in advance of the hearing). In the Respondent’s ET3, Mr Oyegbite states that he is present at the Dubai Lounge on a daily basis Case No: 2300655/2022 that that the Claimant was not known to him as a member of staff. However, he told me that he knew the Claimant was the girlfriend of the manager of the Dubai Lounge at the time, Mr Anthony Carew, and that the Claimant would visit the premises for a drink and to see Mr Carew. Mr Oyegbite told me that he was personally responsible for all recruitment and engagement by the Respondent and that Mr Carew had no authority to engage or recruit members of staff.[5]At the conclusion of this discussion, the Claimant had still not made an appearance.[6]I had regard to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 which states: If a party fails to attend or to be represented at the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of the party. Before doing so, it shall consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reason for the party’s absence.[7]I reminded myself that the Claimant has the burden of showing a deduction of wages.[8]Even on the Claimant’s case, she would not have been continuously employed for a period of not less than two years and she would not be able to pursue a claim of unfair dismissal under sections 98 and 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[9]I decided that the Claimant’s claims should be dismissed under Rule 47. Note