Mr M Yiangou v Purley Boxing Club Ltd: 2302053/2023
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21[1]The respondent having failed to present a response to the claim within the time specified, judgment is given for the claimant.[2]The compensation due to the claimant will be assessed at a further hearing, details of which will be notified to the parties. The respondent will be permitted to take part in that hearing only to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. Case No: 2302053/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS First Claimant: Mr Michael Yiangou Second Claimant: Mr Milo Lethorn Respondent: Purley Boxing Club Limited Heard at: London South ET On: 21st December 2023 Before: Employment Judge J Bromige Representation First Claimant: In Person Second Claimant: In Person Respondent: Did not attend RULE 21 JUDGMENT MADE PURSUANT TO RULE 21 OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS RULES OF PROCEDURE 2013[1]The First Claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment pursuant to s.135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”) is well founded. The Respondent is to pay the First Claimant the sum of £1442.28 in respect of a redundancy payment.[2]The First Claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction of wages pursuant to s.13 ERA 1996 is well-founded. The Respondent is to pay the First Claimant £7,888.42 (gross) in respect of unauthorised deduction from wages. This consists of: a. Between the period 1st July 2022 – 31st January 2023, the Claimant’s contractual entitlement during this period was £14,583.31 (gross). He was only paid £6,694.89 (gross), making a shortfall of £7,888.42 (gross).[3]The Claimant’s claim for holiday pay under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeds. The Respondent is to pay the Claimant the sum of £144.23 (gross), consisting of 1.5 days holiday.[4]The Claimant’s claim for notice pay is not well-founded and is dismissed. This is because the Claimant worked his notice period. Whilst the Claimant Case No: 2302053/2023 has not been paid for that period of notice worked, that sum is recoverable within the award for unlawful deduction of wages.[5]The Second Claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction of wages is well founded. The Respondent is to pay the Second Claimant the sum of £8,480.54 (gross) in respect of unlawful deduction of wages. This consists of: a. Between the period 1st April 2022 – 24th March 2023, the Claimant’s contractual entitlement during this period was £16,270.90. He was only paid £7,790.36 (gross), making a shortfall of £8,480.54 (gross).[6]The total amount of the award isa. First Claimant - £9,474.93b. Second Claimant – £8,480.54[7]The recoupment provisions do not apply. The sums for unlawful deduction of wages and/or holiday pay are awarded gross and each Claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions which may become due. I can confirm that this is my judgment in the case numbered above and I have signed the judgment by electronic signature