Mrs M Pourabbas v Ms R Farsad and Ms R Aryamanesh T/a Roya Beauty Salon: 2411761/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim was issued in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 13 November 2023. The respondents failed to present a valid response.[2]Neither respondent attended the hearing. The identity of the respondents was amended to reflect the information available to the Tribunal. It was in the interests of justice to do so.[3]The respondents have made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and must pay the claimant £802.74. It is understood that both respondents are owners and managers of the business, and they are therefore both liable for the sums owed to the claimant. They must pay this to her immediately.REASONS
[1]The respondents did not provide a response to the claimant’s claim. The claimant’s claim for unpaid wages succeeds by default under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure Regulations 2013.[2]The purpose of this hearing was to find out who the correct respondents should be to the claimant’s claim, and to calculate the compensation that the claimant was owed.[3]The claimant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that she was employed by Roya Beauty Salon at an address in Manchester and that she believed that the owner and former manager of the business was Roya Farsad and the manager at the present time was her daughter, Roksana Aryamanesh. When the Tribunal contacted the business at the address given by the claimant, they did not provide a proper response to her claims. When contacted by email, Ms Farsad suggested that the claimant was instead employed by an entirely different business at a different address in Manchester, seemingly unconnected to the respondents. When the Tribunal served the claim on the other business, they received no response.[4]The claimant told me that the individuals Ms Farsad and Ms Aryamanesh were the correct individuals to contact and that they had engaged with her in ACAS early conciliation. It is also evident from Instagram and the Treatwell online booking platform that the Roya Beauty Salon is an active, trading business, based at the address for service given by the claimant.[5]From the information given to the Tribunal by the claimant and from publicly available information at Companies House, it was clear that the Roya Beauty Salon was not a limited liability company.[6]I find that the business is, on the balance of probabilities, a partnership between Ms Farsad and Ms Aryamanesh, trading as Roya Beauty Salon. I accept that both Ms Aryamanesh and Ms Farsad are still actively involved in the management and running of the business. Indeed, Ms Farsad has responded to emails from the Tribunal. Ms Aryamanesh has engaged in correspondence with the claimant about the claim.[7]As it is a partnership, both individuals are jointly and severally liable to the claimant for the money they owe her. This means that both of them are responsible for paying her the money she is owed. They must pay her straight away.[8]I have therefore substituted the names of Ms Farsad and Ms Aryamanesh for the name of the respondent, said to be Roxana Beauty Salon Ltd by Ms Farsad, and thought to be Roya Beauty Salon by the claimant. It was in the interests of justice to do so. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to do so under Rule 34 of the ET Rules of Procedure 2013. I was satisfied that Ms Farsad and Ms Aryamanesh have had proper notice of the claim and of the hearing today and have had an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but have chosen not to do so.[9]The claimant worked 171.4 hours for the respondents. They refused to pay her (and other staff) the National Minimum Wage in force at the time (July to September 2023) which was £10.42 per hour. She was only paid £983.25 for 171.4 hours work, when she should have received £1785.99. She is to be paid the difference, which is £802.74.