Ms Urzedowska v Croydon Therapy 4 You and Ms Pelczarska: 2304817/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant was a “worker” within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[2]The Claimant worked under a worker contract with the Second Respondent who was her employer.[3]The Second Respondent made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages. The Second Respondent must pay the Claimant the sum of £2,077. The Claimant must account to HMRC for any income tax or National Insurance deductions owed.[4]The Second Respondent failed to provide the Claimant with a statement of written particulars of her worker contract. The Second Respondent must pay the Claimant the sum of £960, equal to two weeks' pay. EJ ReaREASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because the Respondent has not provided any new evidence or any reasonable explanation why it would be in the interests of justice to reconsider the Tribunal’s judgment. The Respondent submits that Ms Pelczarska was unwell on the day of the final hearing. The hearing had already been postponed once in response to an application by the Respondent on the grounds of Ms Pelczarska’s poor health. The Respondent applied for the hearing to be postponed again for the same reason and was told that medical evidence would need to be provided. As such evidence was not forthcoming, the hearing went ahead. EJ Rea considered that Ms Pelczarska was well enough to give evidence and represent the Respondent at the hearing. EJ Rea is satisfied that this did not prevent the Respondent from putting forward its case and notes that no new evidence has been included in the application for reconsideration.