Mr S Pheling v Parrys Motor Parts Ltd: 2400166/2017
JUDGMENT
The complaint of damages for wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages relating to holiday pay are dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant. The claimant’s remaining claim will proceed to hearing on 10 May 2017 at 10.00 am. 04.04.2017 Employment Judge Shotter JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 6 April 2017 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case No. 2400166/2017 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr S Pheling Respondents: Parrys Motor Parts Limited HELD AT: Liverpool ON: 10 May 2017 BEFORE: Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Respondent: Mr S Pinder, solicitor Mr J Lawler, manager JUDGMENT The claimant was unfairly dismissed.[2]Had the respondent acted fairly:2.1 the claimant would not have been dismissed for misconduct;2.2 the claimant would not have been dismissed for any reason during the 6 months following 19 October 2016; and2.3 there is a 25% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed for ill-health absence on or about 19 April 2017;[3]The ACAS Code of Practice 1 – Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (2009) did not apply to any matter to which the proceedings relate. The claimant’s request for an adjustment to his award of compensation under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is accordingly refused.[4]The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant a basic award of £4,000.00. Case No. 2400166/2017 2[5]The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant a compensatory award of £8,833.55.[6]Paragraphs (3) to (7) of Regulation 4 of the Employment Protection (Recoupment etc) Regulations 1996 do not apply.[7]The tribunal makes a costs order for fees, that is, an order under rule 76(4) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 in respect of fees paid by the claimant to the tribunal. The respondent must accordingly pay the sum of £250.00 to the claimant[1]The claimant’s application for a costs order for fees is adjourned.[2]The claimant must notify the tribunal and the respondent in writing of the outcome of his fees remission application within 7 days of being informed of the decision.[3]Depending on the outcome, Employment Judge Horne will grant or refuse the costs order for fees without a further hearing. 10 May 2017 Employment Judge Horne SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 17 May 2017 . FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case No. 2400166/2017 3 NOTICE THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (INTEREST) ORDER 1990 Tribunal case number(s): 2400166/2017 Name of case(s): Mr S Pheling v Parrys Motor Parts Ltd The Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 provides that sums of money payable as a result of a judgment of an Employment Tribunal (excluding sums representing costs or expenses), shall carry interest where the full amount is not paid within 14 days after the day that the document containing the tribunal’s written judgment is recorded as having been sent to parties. That day is known as “the relevant decision day”. The date from which interest starts to accrue is called “the calculation day” and is the day immediately following the relevant decision day. The rate of interest payable is that specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 on the relevant decision day. This is known as "the stipulated rate of interest" and the rate applicable in your case is set out below. The following information in respect of this case is provided by the Secretary of the Tribunals in accordance with the requirements of Article 12 of the Order:- "the relevant decision day" is: 17 May 2017 "the calculation day" is: 18 May 2017 "the stipulated rate of interest" is: 8% MISS K MCDONAGH For the Employment Tribunal Office Case No. 2400166/2017 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr S Pheling Respondents: Parrys Motor Parts LimitedREASONS
[1]The case management order sent to the parties on 17 May 2017 sets out the circumstances of the claimant’s application for a further costs order in respect of the hearing fee.[2]The claimant’s solicitor has informed the tribunal by e-mail dated 22 May 2017 that the hearing fee “does need to be paid”. The tribunal infers from this e-mail that the claimant is not entitled to remission. The claimant will not, therefore, receive reimbursement of his hearing fee unless it is paid by the respondent.[3]The claim was determined in the claimant’s favour at a hearing. There is no reason to depart from the general principle that a successful claimant should recover the hearing fee. 9 June 2017