Mr A Lekston v Honeyimhomefurnishings Ltd: 2405833/2020
JUDGMENT
The claim for a redundancy payment is dismissed.REASONS
[1]The claimant does not have the necessary 2 years’ qualifying service to pursue a claim for a redundancy payment.[2]Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear such a claim in this case. _____________________________ Employment Judge Batten 30 November 2020[1]The Tribunal convened for the final hearing to determine the claimant’s claims for arrears of pay and holiday pay. The hearing was listed for one hour, partly by CVP and for the claimant to attend in person. Case Number: 2405833/2020 Code V 2 of 5[2]There had been a previous hearing, on 30 November 2020 , by CVP, but the claimant found that he had technical difficulties, and required an Interpreter, so the hearing was postponed. It was subsequently directed that the claimant attend in person, but the respondent could participate by CVP.[3]Case Management Orders were made on the postponement, sent to the parties on 4 December 2020. They required the claimant to confirm his contact details, and also to provide to the Tribunal, and the respondent by 14 December 2020 confirmation of the amounts that he was claiming in respect of unpaid wages and holiday pay, and to confirm if these were gross or net sums. He was to provide his calculations. He did so by email of 6 December 2020. That email was, unfortunately , not referred to an Employment Judge before this hearing.[4]The claimant did not attend or participate in the hearing, and attempts to reach him by telephone proved unsuccessful. His daughter was, however, spoken to. Given that the claimant lives in Kent, it is perhaps as well that he did not in fact attend the hearing. His English is poor, and this may be why he was not aware of his need to take part in the hearing.[5]Attempts by the Tribunal to reach the respondent by email have failed, although notice of the adjourned hearing was sent by letter of 4 December 2020 by post. As the ET3 filed states that the claims are not defended , the lack of participation in this hearing is academic. Fortunately the Employment Judge, on the information provided by the claimant , has been able to make the Rule 21 judgment above so no further hearing is necessary.[6]The claimant should be aware, however, that there is a proposal by the Registrar of Companies to strike off the respondent from the Register of Companies, after which it will have no legal existence. That proposal was made on 5 January 2021 , and will be actioned two months later, i.e on 5 March 2021. The claimant may therefore wish to take the appropriate action to object and prevent that occurring. Enforcement of any award, however, is not a matter the Tribunal, and he must take the necessary steps to obtain payment of the sums due under the judgment.