Miss D Davies v Prosurance Ltd: 2413604/2019
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim in respect of arrears or wages is well-founded.[2]The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant compensation in the sum of £583.24 on or before 3 January 2020 calculated as set out in the Reasons below.REASONS
[1]Of my own initiative I provide reasons for this judgment for the assistance of the parties.[2]The claimant claimed the net sum of £466.59. That sum was the difference between the total of £866.59 shown in her final payslip and the sum in fact paid by the respondent.[3]The respondent did not enter response. The claim was listed for hearing. In evidence the claimant established that she had only been paid £400 out of the total net sum on the payslip.[4]I therefore found that the claim was well-founded. The appropriate remedy is to order the respondent to pay the difference between the sum properly owing and the sum paid.[5]However, the claimant also showed that she had complained about the respondent’s failure to pay her. She produced copies of text messages sent to Christopher Pike between 6 August 2019 and 3 September 2019 which showed that he had acknowledged that the claimant was owed the sum claimed. The claimant also produced copies of text messages sent to Lewis Camilleri a director of the respondent between 12 August 2019 and 3 September 2019.[6]It is clear from those text messages that the claimant was making a complaint about the failure to pay. In my judgment that complaint engaged the provisions of ACAS Code of Practice 1 on disciplinary and grievance procedures. The text messages show that there was a complete failure by the respondent to address the claimant’s complaint. In simple terms she was fobbed off by Mr Pike and when she attempted to escalate the matter to Mr Camilleri he told her to wait for Mr Pike who was on annual leave and said “… I am very busy. Stop messaging me!”. Despite that the respondent never responded to the complaint in any further way.[7]On any analysis this was a complete and unreasonable failure by the respondent to comply with the provisions of the Code which sets out at paragraph 33 to 45 what is required of an employer when an employee makes a grievance.[8]That failure engages the provisions of section 207A of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which provides as follows:(1) This section applies to proceedings before an employment tribunal relating to a claim by an employee under any of the jurisdictions listed in Schedule A2.(2) If, in the case of proceedings to which this section applies, it appears to the employment tribunal that— (a) the claim to which the proceedings relate concerns a matter to which a relevant Code of Practice applies, (b) the employer has failed to comply with that Code in relation to that matter, and (c) that failure was unreasonable, the employment tribunal may, if it considers it just and equitable in all the circumstances to do so, increase any award it makes to the employee by no more than 25%.[9]The claimant’s claim is one of those listed in the schedule and I am satisfied that it is just and equitable to increase the award. In the light of the complete failure to deal with the claimant’s legitimate claim and the failure of the respondent to defend the proceedings, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to increase the award by the full 25%.[10]I reach that conclusion without the claimant having applied to the tribunal for such an uplift. It is a matter in respect of which the Tribunal can determine without such an application having been made.[11]I therefore calculate the compensation which is payable to the claimant by the respondent as follows: Arrears of wages £466.59 S.207A Uplift at 25% £116.65 Total £583.24