Employment Judge PorterIn person for claimantNot in attendance for respondentDate 11 September 2017
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant was dismissed for asserting a statutory right. His claim under section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996 is well founded.[2]The request for reinstatement is refused.[3]The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant compensation in the sum of £12,604.00 comprising:3.1 Basic Award in the sum of £2, 916.00; and3.2 Compensatory Award in the sum of £9,688.00[4]The recoupment regulations do not apply.[5]The claim for breach of contract, failure to provide notice of termination of employment is well founded. The respondent is ordered to pay damages to the claimant in the sum of £1,944.00.[6]The claim for unlawful deduction from wages is well-founded .and the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £9,094.60 gross.[7]The respondent has failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £2,613.20.[8]The respondent failed to provide the claimant with itemised pay statements. The claim under s11 Employment Rights Act 1996 is wellfounded. The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £92.04, being the aggregate of the unnotified deductions (national insurance contributions) for the period of 13 weeks.[9]The claimant has paid fees in connection with this claim. In R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 the Supreme Court decided that it was unlawful for Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to charge fees of this nature. HMCTS has undertaken to repay such fees. In these circumstances the tribunal shall draw to the attention of HMCTS that this is a case in which fees have been paid and are therefore to be refunded to the claimant. The details of the repayment scheme are a matter for HMCTS.