Mr A Rassel and Mr D Radu v Boiler & Company UK Ltd: 2301749/2023 and 2301750/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2301749/2023, 2301750/2023

Between

Mr A Rassel and Mr D RaduClaimant

Boiler & Company UK LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Curtis

In person for claimant

Not represented for respondent

Date 8 November 2023

JUDGMENT

Upon the Respondent having failed to attend or be represented at the hearing and having considered the information available to it, the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the Respondent pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and made the following orders:

[1]The Respondent’s name is amended to “Boiler & Company UK Limited”

[2]The complaints of unfair dismissal are not well founded and are dismissed, as the Claimants did not have sufficient length of service at the time that they were dismissed.

[3]When the proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimants with a written statement of employment particulars. The statement of employment particulars ought to have included the following:a. For the First Claimant, Mr Rassel: i. The employer was Boiler & Company UK Limited and theemployee was Mr A Rassel ii. Continuous employment commenced on 2 December 2022 iii. Pay was £12 per hour. The hours and days of work werevariable. Remuneration was to be paid fortnightly. iv. Mr Rassel was employed as a kitchen porter at the Respondent’s premises at 5 Canvey Street, London, SE1 9AN Case No: 2301749/2023 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 February 2018 v. There are no particulars to be entered under any otherparagraph of s.1(4) ERA 1996.

b. For the Second Claimant, Mr Radu: i. The employer was Boiler & Company UK Limited and theemployee was Mr D Radu ii. Continuous employment commenced on 25 March 2023 iii. Pay was £12 per hour. The hours and days of work werevariable. Remuneration was to be paid monthly. iv. Mr Radu was employed as a kitchen porter at the Respondent’s premises at 5 Canvey Street, London, SE1 9AN v. There are no particulars to be entered under any otherparagraph of s.1(4) ERA 1996.

[4]The Second Claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The respondent shall pay the Second Claimant £480 which is the gross sum deducted.

[5]There are no exceptional circumstances that make an award of an amount equal to two weeks’ gross pay unjust or inequitable. It is not 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 Second Claimant £480. No award is made in respect of the First Claimant, as the First Claimant did not succeed with any claim under Schedule 5 Employment Act 2002.

[6]The respondent failed to give the First Claimant written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 in the period 2 December 2022 to 9 April 2023

[7]The Respondent failed to give the Second Claimant written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 in the period 25 March 2023 to 7 April 2023.