Mr S Pagano v Rajmond Z Hasanaj and others: 2401781/2017
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2401781/2017
Between
Mr S PaganoClaimant1. Rajmond Z Hasanaj 2. Filipe da Costa 3. DGR (Manchester) LimitedRespondent
Before
Employment Judge FraneyDate 15 August 2017
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]All complaints against the first and second respondents are dismissed on withdrawal.[2]In the absence of any response form from the third respondent defending the complaints brought against it, pursuant to Rule 21 the following complaints succeed against the third respondent only:(a) the complaints of harassment related to sexual orientation, direct sexual orientation discrimination, direct sex discrimination and victimisation contrary to the Equality Act 2010 as set out in the Statement of Claim paragraphs 21-25;(b) the complaint of unfair dismissal under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 as set out in the Statement of Claim paragraph 27;(c) the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay as set out in the Statement of Claim paragraph 29;(d) the complaint of unlawful deductions from pay under Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 as set out in the Statement of Claim paragraphs 28a – 28c, and(e) the complaint of breach of contract in relation to hours of work as set out in the Statement of Claim paragraph 30. Case No. 2401781/2017[3]The hearing listed at 10.00 am on 6 September 2017 is converted to a remedy hearing in public before any Employment Judge sitting alone with a time estimate of 2 hours. The first and second respondents do not need to attend. The appropriate awards against the third respondent for the successful complaints will be determined. Employment Judge Franey 15 August 2017[1]Pursuant to the rule 21 judgment as to liability sent to the parties on 21 August 2017, and having considered written representations from the claimant (including a witness statement, schedule of loss and accompanying documents), the Tribunal makes the following judgment as to remedy in relation to the complaints identified in paragraph 2(a) – (e) of the liability judgment:(a) All proceedings as to remedy in relation to complaints under the Equality Act 2010 (including the complaint set out in paragraph 28.d of the statement of claim) and any matters not encompassed by the awards made in this judgment are stayed pending further order from the Tribunal. Such matters are not suitable for determination on paper and if the claimant wishes to have a remedy for such matters he will need to request an “in person” remedy hearing.(b) In relation to unfair dismissal the respondent is ordered to pay the claimant a basic award of £746 and a compensatory award of £17,333.20 calculated as follows: Loss of statutory rights £350.00 Lost basic pay December 2016-December 2017 £8.00 per hour x 20 hours per week x 52 weeks £8,320.00 Case No. 2401781/2017 2 Lost tips December 2016-December 2017 £8.33 per hour x 20 hours per week x 52 weeks £8,633.20 Total £17,333.20(c) The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £746.00 as damages for breach of contract in relation to notice pay.(d) The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £37,915.53 unlawfully deducted from his pay calculated as follows: Basic pay and tips for 16 December 2016£78.77 Pay for annual leave accrued but untaken £206.76 Unpaid tips £7.10 per hour x 20 hours per week x 265 weeks £37,630.00£37,915.53(e) The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £1,404.38 as damages for breach of contract in respect of the failure to provide the claimant with 20 hours of work each week in the period from 29 May 2015 to 16 December 2016. The recoupment regulations do not apply.[3]The total amount payable by the respondent to the claimant pursuant to this judgment is therefore £58,145.11.