Employment Judge C HydeIn person for claimantDate 26 September 2019
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that: -[1]The claim for unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed.[2]The claim for unlawful deduction of wages was not well founded and was dismissed. Employment Judge Hyde Date: 26 September 2019 Case Number: 2304027/2018 Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request is made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Public access to Employment Tribunal Judgments All judgments and the written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the Claimant(s) and Respondent(s) in a case. Case Number: 2304027/2018 THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL SITTING AT: LONDON SOUTH BEFORE: EMPLOYMENT JUDGE C HYDE (sitting alone) BETWEEN: Claimant MR G NGUGI AND Respondent AMITY SECURITY LIMITED ON: 25 September 2019 APPEARANCES: For the Claimant: In Person For the Respondent: Mrs J McCalla, Director of the Respondent WRITTEN REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT ANNOUNCED ON 25 SEPTEMBER 2019 AND SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 23 NOVEMBER 2019[1]Reasons are set out in writing following a request from the Claimant sent by email dated 26 September 2019 for a reconsideration of the Judgment. He still believed that he was owed £15 by the Respondent.[2]These reasons for the Judgment which was sent to the parties on 23 November 2019 are set out only to the extent that the Tribunal considers it necessary to do so in order for the parties to understand why their respective cases have succeeded or not. Further, the Tribunal only sets the reasons out in writing to the extent that it is proportionate to do so. Case Number: 2304027/2018[3]All findings of fact were reached on the balance of probabilities.[4]By a claim which was presented on 3 November 2018, the Claimant complained that he had been unfairly dismissed and also that he had not been paid the correct wages.[5]In relation to his unfair dismissal complaint the Claimant confirmed that his work for the Respondent had spanned the period of 28 September 2017 to 28 June 2018. It appeared to the Tribunal therefore that even if the Claimant was an employee, which the Respondent disputed, he did not have sufficient length of service to bring a claim as required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 – unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act.[6]The Claimant’s claim form did not support any further basis on which he could have complained of unfair dismissal.[7]The Tribunal therefore dismissed that claim forthwith.[8]The remaining complaint that there had been an unlawful deduction from his wages under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was set out in the claim form in a narrative form. The Tribunal then doublechecked with him that he still believed that the information in his statement was accurate. Apart from the Claimant attributing one payment to 10 June 2018 which had actually been received on 1 June, and a discrepancy of 50p, he confirmed that his account of the funds received was accurate. The Tribunal verified these payments by reference to a print-out of the Claimant’s bank statement for the relevant timeframe from May to August when the last payment was received; and by reference to three pages of time sheets and by reference to the WhatsApp messages by which the Claimant was booked to work.[9]Thus, it was agreed with this calculation that the Claimant received the sum of £650.50 from the period 25 May to 10 August 2018 in respect of work done from 17 May to 28 June 2018. In that timeframe he was paid the sum of £650.50 according to his bank statement. The parties also agreed that the agreed rate of pay was £10.00 per hour.[10]The Tribunal then added up the total number of hours that the Claimant had worked which again the Tribunal verified by the contemporaneous documentation and this totalled 63.5 hours.[11]For the avoidance of doubt, the Claimant agreed that he had worked an additional shift before 17 May which was on 3 May and that he had received the correct amount in payment of £65.00 on 11 May 2018. The Tribunal disregarded that payment on his bank statement. Case Number: 2304027/2018[12]The Tribunal was therefore satisfied that the Claimant had been paid the sums that he was entitled to for shifts worked between 17 May and 28 June 2018 inclusive. There was therefore no further sum outstanding. The unlawful deduction of wages claim was therefore not well founded and was dismissed. Evidence Adduced[13]The Tribunal considered a statement prepared by the Claimant and marked [C1]; bank statement printouts of the Claimant’s account, marked [C2]; and a bundle of documents compiled by the Claimant, marked [C3]. ________________________________ Employment Judge Hyde Date: 4 December 2019 Case Number: 2304027/2018 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr. G. Ngugi Respondent: Amity Security Ltd
REASONS
[1]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because it is not necessary in the interests of justice to do so.[2]In support of his application for reconsideration, the Claimant has repeated arguments which were considered during the hearing, and in respect of which relevant findings are set out in the Tribunal’s reasons.[3]The Claimant disagrees with the Tribunal’s findings, but that is not an adequate basis for a reconsideration. Indeed, as set out in the comments received by the Tribunal from the Respondent, dated 17 March 2020, the Tribunal relied on the Claimant’s own evidence in reaching its decision, having recalculated and checked the figures with the parties on two occasions. The Claimant expressed no disagreement with the facts and figures, on which the decision was based, during the hearing. The hearing lasted from about midday until just after 3pm, with a break for lunch.[4]Further, the Tribunal treated the additional documents submitted by the Claimant after the hearing by email sent on 26 September 2019 in which he challenged the Tribunal’s calculations and findings, as an application for a reconsideration. The reconsideration application was refused. The Claimant was informed of this by letter from the Tribunal dated 15 January 2020. The Claimant has thus had more than an adequate opportunity to put his case. Case Number: 2304027/2018 2[5]It is well established that the written reasons only need to meet the test of adequacy set out in the case of Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250 CA, as cited in paragraph 1 of the reasons for the original decision.[6]Further, as set out in rule 2 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, in exercising any power given to it, such as the provision of reasons for its decision, the Tribunal shall seek to give effect to the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly, one aspect of which is dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues.[7]The Tribunal’s reasons were set out in appropriate detail and adequately dealt with the issues identified. As stated in paragraph 1 of the reasons for the original decision, the dispute in this case was about the Claimant’s entitlement to £15. Further judicial consideration of this claim is not proportionate.[8]In all the circumstances the Tribunal did not consider that it was necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the original decision, and the application was therefore refused.