Ms M Quashie v Impact Learning and Data Soutions Ltd T/a TLC: 2301776/2017
JUDGMENT
[1]The correct name of the Respondent is Impact Learning and Data Solutions Limited trading as TLC and the title to these proceedings is amended accordingly.[2]The Claimant’s claim that the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from her wages is well-founded.[3]The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of £6.00.[4]The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of £370 for preparation time.REASONS
[1]The Claimant claimed: 1.1. three days’ unpaid wages (which she calculates as £323.07 at the rate of £107.69 per day); 1.2. deductions from her wages of £778.00; and 1.3. expenses in the sum of £155.23. The total claim was therefore £1,256.30.[2]The Respondent failed to present a response as required by Rule 16 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The Tribunal has therefore had regard to Rule 21.[3]Although the Respondent did not present a response, it did inform the Tribunal that a number of payments had been made to the Claimant. Upon enquiry of the Claimant, the Claimant informed the Tribunal that she did not wish to withdraw her claim and sought compensation and costs for the inconvenience she has suffered.[4]The Claimant accepts that, having regard to the likely tax deductions made by the Respondent, the sums paid to her satisfy her claim in respect of the deductions actually made. However, she told the Tribunal that because she suffered the deductions claimed she was obliged to borrow money from her brother (on an interest free basis) and suffered a £6 bank charge when her direct debit payments caused her to go into overdraft.[5]The Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to order an employer to compensate a worker for any financial loss suffered by her which is attributable to the deductions of wages complained of. The Claimant suffered a financial loss of £6.00.[6]The Tribunal informed the Claimant that it had no power to award compensation for inconvenience per se or “costs” in favour of an unrepresented litigant but did have jurisdiction to make a preparation time order under Rules 75(2), 76, 77, 79 and 84.[7]The Tribunal concludes that the Respondent acted unreasonably in conducting proceedings in that: 7.1. It failed to present a response; and / or 7.2. It threatened the Claimant with costs if the Claimant did not withdraw her claim and the hearing were to proceed.[8]Furthermore, the Tribunal concludes that by failing to present a response to the claim the Respondent had no reasonable prospects of successfully resisting the claim.[9]The Tribunal notes that the Respondent is represented by its solicitors.[10]Given the clear indication given to the Respondent in advance of the hearing that the Claimant wished to pursue a claim for costs, which is broadly equivalent to a preparation time order in relation to an unrepresented litigant, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent had a reasonable opportunity to make representations in response to the application.[11]The Claimant informed the Tribunal that she had spent 10 hours working on the case excluding the final hearing.[12]The Claimant also informed the Tribunal that the Respondent was a training provider with a number of employees. The Tribunal concludes that the Respondent highly likely to have the ability to pay.[13]In the circumstances, the Tribunal determined that the Respondent should pay preparation time to the Claimant for 10 hours at the rate of £37 per hour.