Mr C Mistry v Mr R D Cafagna and All 4 One Catering Ltd: 2305974/2024
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 – Rule 22[1]The Claimant presented his claim to the London South Employment Tribunal by a Claim Form dated 8 August 2024.[2]While that Claim Form only identified the First Respondent as a respondent to that matter, by Orders dated 5 February 2024, Employment Judge T Brown determined that the Claimant’s case would be considered alongside the cases brought by a number of his former colleagues, and that the First Respondent and the Second Respondent were properly the respondents in this case as well as in those.[3]The Claimant has withdrawn his claim against the First Respondent, and that claim is dismissed upon its withdrawal.[4]The Second Respondent has failed to present a valid response to the claim on time on the expiry of the time limit in Rule 17 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (the ET Rules). 1 of 3[5]The Employment Judge has decided that, pursuant to Rule 22(2) of the ET Rules, a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it, on the available material, and finds that: a) The Claimant was employed by the Second Respondent for just under four weeks. He did not have the two years’ service required by section 108 of the 1996 Act, and so his complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal does not succeed and is dismissed; b) The Second Respondent did not pay the Claimant for some of the work performed by him, and therefore made unauthorised deductions from his wages under section 13 of the 1996 Act. This complaint brought by the Claimant is well-founded; c) The Second Respondent deducted sums from the Claimant’s wages on the condition that those sums were to be contributed by the Claimant to a pension scheme. However the Second Respondent failed to pay those deducted sums across to the pension scheme, and so those were unauthorised deductions from his wages under section 13 of the 1996 Act. The value of those deductions was 5% of the Claimant’s gross wages for the period of his employment from 21 June 2024 to 17 July 2024. This complaint brought by the Claimant is well-founded; d) The Claimant was dismissed without notice, or pay in lieu of notice, by the Second Respondent. He was entitled to one week’s notice, and he worked 21 hours a week at £8.70 per hour; and e) The Claimant raised a grievance with the Second Respondent in respect of his unpaid wages, and the Second Respondent did not act on that grievance at all. The Employment Judge has determined that, in light of that fact, and in light of the fact that the Second Respondent exists and was effectively run by the First Respondent and so it could have made some efforts to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures but made none whatsoever, it is appropriate to make an adjustment to the awards payable to the Claimant to increase those awards by 25% pursuant to section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[6]The Second Respondent must pay to the Claimant damages in the sum of £1,083.06 gross, calculated as follows: a) In respect of unauthorised deductions from his wages earned in June and July 2024: £649.56 gross; b) £34.19 in respect of sums deducted from his wages purportedly to be made as contributions to the pension scheme by the Claimant, but which were not in fact paid across to the pension scheme by the Second Respondent; 2 of 3 c) £182.70 by way of damages for wrongful dismissal (notice pay) (one week’s pay); and d) £216.61 in respect of a 25% uplift on those amounts for complete failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice.[7]The hearing listed for 9 and 10 October 2025 is vacated.