Miss K Smith and Miss L Cass v Ms Louise Devlin: 2402026/2017 and 2402672/2017
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 The time for presenting a response having expired and no valid response having been presented by the respondent, it is the judgment of the tribunal that: Miss K Smith.[1]The first claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment is well founded and succeeds, and the respondent is ordered to pay her a redundancy payment of 16.5 x £232.50 = £3,836.25 .[2]The first claimant’s complaint of breach of contract is well-founded and succeeds. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant her notice pay, 12 weeks pay, in the net sum of £2,628.12 (12 x net weekly pay of £219.01), as damages for breach of contract. This is a net sum, to be paid to the first claimant net, and the respondent shall account for any tax and national insurance contributions due thereon.[3]The first claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages is wellfounded and succeeds. The respondent unlawfully deducted £109.00 by way of non – payment for hours worked between 2 January 2017 and 6 January 2017. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the said total sum of £109.00, subject to the appropriate deductions for tax and national insurance.[4]The first claimant’s complaint of failure to pay to the claimant an amount due to the claimant under regulation 14 (2) or regulation 16 (1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 is well-founded, and the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £23.25 (2.5 hours @ £9.30 per hour) in respect of untaken but accrued holiday (holiday pay). This is a gross amount and the respondent shall be responsible for deducting any income tax and employee’s national insurance, if any, relating to it.[5]The respondent failed to provide the first claimant with written particulars of the main terms and conditions of her employment as required by s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and pursuant to s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 the tribunal makes Case Nos:2402026/2017 & 2402672/2017 5.9 an additional award of 4 weeks pay £930.00 , which sum the respondent is also ordered to pay to the first claimant. 5. The respondent is ordered to pay the said sums to the second claimant, together with the tribunal fee of £160.00 paid by the FIRST claimant. 2.Miss L Cass.[1]The second claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment is well founded and succeeds, and the respondent is ordered to pay her a redundancy payment of 7.5 x £115.20 = £864.00 .[2]The second claimant’s complaint of breach of contract is well-founded and succeeds. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant her notice pay, 10 weeks pay, in the sum of £1,152.00, as damages for breach of contract. This is a gross sum, and the respondent shall deduct and account for any tax and national insurance contributions due thereon.[3]The second claimant’s complaint of failure to pay to the claimant an amount due to the claimant under regulation 14 (2) or regulation 16 (1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 is well-founded, and the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £12.60 (1.75 hours @ £7.20 per hour) in respect of untaken but accrued holiday (holiday pay). This is a gross amount and the respondent shall be responsible for deducting any income tax and employee’s national insurance, if any, relating to it.[4]The respondent failed to provide the second claimant with written particulars of the main terms and conditions of her employment as required by s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and pursuant to s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 the tribunal makes an additional award of 4 weeks pay £460.80 , which sum the respondent is also ordered to pay to the second claimant.[5]The respondent is ordered to pay the said sums to the second claimant, together with the tribunal fee of £160.00 paid by the second claimant. Any hearing is cancelled. EMPLOYMENT JUDGE HOLMES[1]The judgment of the tribunal sent to the parties on 20 June 2017 is reconsidered, and is, in part, revoked to provide that the judgment is varied to rescind the finding at para. 3 in relation to the complaint by Miss K Smith of unlawful deduction from wages.[2]The claim by Miss K Smith of unlawful deductions from wages is dismissed upon withdrawal by her.[3]Save as aforesaid, the remaining terms of the judgment are not reconsidered, and remain in force.