Ms J Seale v Mrs F Parisi T/a Beauty Within: 2407569/2023
JUDGMENT
[3]The claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages for 98 hours unpaid breaks in the sum of £1,078 is not well founded and fails. The claimant’s claim that she was unfavourably treated because of something arising in consequence of disability when she was dismissed, pursuant to Section 15 Equality Act 2010 is well founded and succeeds. The claimant’s claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment pursuant to Section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 is well founded and succeeds. 1[4]Notes Case No. 2407569/2023 The case will proceed to a remedy hearing on Monday 25 November 2024 at Employment Tribunals, Alexandra House, 14 – 22 The Parsonage, Manchester, M3 2JA with an estimated length of hearing of one day starting at 10.00 am.REASONS
[1]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. I have considered the respondents application to reconsider the remedy judgement. In accordance with the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, I must first consider whether there is “no reasonable prospect off the judgement being varied or revoked.” Rule 70(2) ET Procedure Rules 2024.[2]In reaching the decision I took into account the contents of the respondent’s application and the 2 letters received from the claimant both dated 23 December 2024.[3]I reminded myself that there is a public interest in finality in litigation- see the case of Outasight VB Limited v Brown [2014] UKEAT 0253.14 to which the respondent refers. That case confirms the “interests of justice” must be seen from both sides (Redding v EMI Leisure Ltd EAT 262/81). Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a “second bite of the cherry”. Usually documents which existed at the time of the original hearing and were not adduced, are not an appropriate grounds for reconsideration.[4]The respondent is trying to suggest that the modest award of 7 weeks loss of wages is unsafe and the injury to feelings award is incorrect because 3 social media posts which the respondent admit it had in its possession prior to the Case Number: 2407569/2023 remedy hearing, were not presented in evidence. It also relies on the fact that wage slips for the claimant’s new job were not presented to the remedy hearing.[5]The Tribunal heard sworn evidence from the claimant about her loss of earnings. We relied on her verbal evidence in relation to her new job and when it started. We found her to be a conscientious witness. The respondent, who is professionally represented, did not make a formal application for disclosure of wage slips prior to the remedy hearing. In fact the respondent did not comply with the case management orders for the remedy hearing.[6]The respondent’s representative relies on the personal circumstances of their client Mrs Parisi as to why the social media posts were not disclosed at the remedy hearing. The Tribunal has great sympathy for Mrs Parisi, whose elderly mother is on end-of-life care. The Tribunal reflected this by postponing the original remedy hearing. However the Tribunal is not satisfied, given the length of time between the liability hearing and the relisted remedy hearing that those personal circumstances explain the failure to disclose the posts which allegedly show the claimant working. In any event the claimant’s letters of 23 December 2024 show she disputes the posts show this.[7]Therefore, the further evidence the respondent wants to rely on existed at the time of the remedy hearing and was not disclosed. There is also dispute about the content of the social media posts.[8]The Tribunal has had regard to the overriding objective. There is indeed an interest in finality of litigation. It is not directly relevant but at the relisted remedy hearing the claimant said she had not received payment for the holiday pay which the respondent agreed to pay at the hearing in September 2024 and which is recorded in a Judgment withdrawing that claim. The respondent’s representative was unable to comment on the matter.[9]Having considered carefully the grounds raised by the respondent and the claimant’s objection, I am satisfied there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked and the application is refused.