Mr A Darguzas and Mr M Solopa v AJT Management Consultancy Ltd: 2300680/2021 and 2300681/2021
JUDGMENT
The Claimants did not attend today’s hearing and provided no satisfactory explanation for their absence. Their claims are dismissed.REASONS
[1]This is a multiple claim brought by the two Claimant’s in respect of unpaid wages whilst working as carpenters on a building site. The Respondent denies ever employing the Claimants and has indicated that they were employed by Laider Luxstone Ltd. The Claimants were invited by a letter from the Tribunal dated 22 September 2021 to respond to this assertion, but no response was received.[2]Notice of today’s hearing was sent to the parties by letter dated 25 August 2021. It was subsequently converted to a CVP hearing and joining details[3]The hearing was scheduled to start at 10 am by which time only Mr Dennington was in attendance. Mr Darguzas only provided an email address Case No: 2300680/2021 & 2300681/2021 to contact him on. Mr Solopa only provided a postal address. Neither party had contacted the Tribunal to indicate that they were not able to attend today’s hearing.[4]My clerk emailed Mr Darguzas at 10.12 am to remind him of the hearing and asked whether he was still able to attend today. I instructed my clerk to email Mr Darguzas again further explaining that in the absence of a response or his attendance I will start the hearing at 10.30 am. This start time was put back to 11 am due to connectivity issues and ultimately the hearing did not commence until 11.25 am. Mr Darguzas emailed the Tribunal at 11.19 am stating that he was not able to attend the hearing today because he was working. Of course, it was not possible to contact Mr Solopa.[5]Under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013: “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 that party. Before doing so, it shall consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.”[6]Having considered the information, which is available to me, after any enquiries that were practicable, about the claimants’ reasons for their absence, I decided to dismiss the claims. Mr Darguzas’ reason for nonattendance at a notified hearing was simply not satisfactory. Mr Solopa provided no indication that he was not going to attend the notified hearing.[7]In any event, the burden of proof was on both the claimants to show that the respondent had not paid them wages that were properly payable. Employment Judge Tsamados Date 24 January 2022 Public access to Employment Tribunal Judgments All judgments and written reasons for the judgments are published online shortly after a copy has been sent to the Claimant(s) and Respondent(s) in a case. They can be found at: www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions.