Miss J Udoma and Mrs M Udoma v LJ Health and Wellbeing Ltd and Jacksonwell Recruitment Ltd: 2401924/2024 and others
JUDGMENT
The claimants did not provide any evidence of their unpaid wages or redundancy payment claims to the Tribunal when asked and did not attend the hearing. The redundancy payment claim in 2402102/2024 (Mrs Udoma) was struck out byREASONS
[1]These claims are amongst fourteen claims against the respondents, arising out of a period in the second half of 2023 and early 2024 when a number of care workers worked for the respondents but were either not paid at all, or paid only a small amount of wages. They have attempted to obtain payment from the respondents and directly from a director, Mr Liam Jackson, but have been unsuccessful. Both the first and the second respondent remain active companies according to the Companies House register. They continue to refuse to engage with the Tribunal claims and the claimants.[2]The fourteen claims are being heard together in the Tribunal. This judgment relates solely to the two claimants who brought claims together by two ET1 forms sent to the Tribunal. The first ET1 had Miss Udoma as the lead claimant and Mrs Udoma as an additional claimant. Both claimants claimed unpaid wages (which were unquantified) and a redundancy payment. The second ET1 had Mrs Udoma as the lead claimant and Miss Udoma as an additional claimant. Both claimants again claimed unpaid wages (which were unquantified) and a redundancy payment. It may be that these claims have been duplicated in error. However, the claimants have provided the Tribunal with no evidence as to why or how they are entitled to those claims. Neither claimant has more than two years’ service which is needed to be entitled to a redundancy payment.[3]Mrs Udoma’s case was brought to the attention of the duty judge Employment Judge Batten who struck out her redundancy payment claim on 3 June 2024 as Mrs Udoma does not have the two years’ service required to bring such a claim and did not respond to a request for more evidence. Had the other three claims been brought to the attention of a duty judge, it is likely that all redundancy payment claims would have also been struck out for the same reason.[4]There was a case management hearing on 22 July 2024 that the claimants did not attend. They received letters from the Tribunal asking them for more information by 11 September 2024 and did not respond. They have not attended today. They have not shown why, despite having less than two years’ service, they are entitled to a redundancy payment. They have also not provided any information about the amount of wages they are asking the Tribunal to award. Therefore, their claims are struck out against both respondents.