Mr J Rivera v Capital Staffing Services Ltd: 2302203/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s application for a postponement of this hearing is refused.[2]The following claims have been struck out pursuant to Rule 37 (1) (a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Schedule 1 as having no reasonable prospect of success: a) Alleged unlawful deduction of wages claim covering the period from February to April 2016 as set out at para.3 of the Claim Form; b) Alleged unlawful deduction of wages relating to unpaid basic salary as set out at para 19.1 of the Claim Form.[3]The following claims have been made subject to the payment of a deposit order of £1,000 per claim: a) Automatically Unfair Dismissal claim pursuant to section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996; b) The Claim for salary and salary bonus as set out at par 19.2 of the Claim; c) The wrongful dismissal claim at para 21.2 of the Claim.[4]The following claims remain to be determined at a final hearing: a) The claim of ordinary unfair dismissal; b) The claim for the salary bonus as set out at para 19.1 (unlawful deduction of wages only); c) The claim for a company bonus at para 19.3 (unlawful deduction of wages only); d) Any unlawful deductions linked to a failure to pay pension contributions deducted to the pension provider at para 21.1 (unlawful deduction of wages claim only). Employment Judge Self Date: 4th March 2022 …………………………. For the Tribunal Office: ……………………………. Sent to the parties on: 7th March 2022 Case No: 2302203/2020 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 February 2018 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Joaquim Rivera Respondent: Capital Staffing Services Limited Heard at: London South, by CVP On: 6th June 2022 Before: Employment Judge Reed Representation: Claimant: Did not attend Respondent: Ms Germain, Solicitor[1]The claim is dismissed upon non-attendance of the Claimant, pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.[2]Today’s hearing was due to start at 10am. The Claimant did not attend at this time. At 10.20am the hearing proceeded in his absence. The hearing lasted until approximately 10.45 and the Claimant did not arrive during that time.[3]The Tribunal clerk called the Claimant twice, first at 10am and then at 10.15am. Both calls rang out with no answer. No application for a postponement or explanation for non-attendance had been given in advance.[4]Before deciding the dismiss the claim, the Tribunal considered the Claimant’s general conduct of the claim. In particular, the Tribunal noted that:a. The Claimant had not attended the earlier preliminary hearing on 1st February 2022.b. He had, however, made an application to postpone that hearing, which was evidence both that communications from the Tribunal was reaching the Claimant and that he was aware it was necessary to communicate any difficulty with attending a hearing to the Tribunal.c. The Claimant had not complied with the case management orders made by the Tribunal in its order dated 8th March 2022.d. The Claimant had not made contact with either the Tribunal or the Respondent since 31st January 2022. Case No: 2302203/2020 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 February 2018