Mr C Cooper v UKPD Ltd: 2414174/2019
JUDGMENT
[1]The respondent failed to pay the claimant's pay in lieu of untaken holiday on termination of his employment, in the total sum of £1,265.00. The respondent is ordered to pay that sum to the claimant, which is a gross sum from which the appropriate deductions for tax and national insurance should be made.[2]The address of the respondent is amended to provide that its address is its Registered Office at 15 Olympic Court, Boardmans Way, Whitehills Business Park, Blackpool, FY4 5GU.REASONS
[1]By a claim form presented to the Tribunal on 30 October 2019 the claimant brought claims in respect of holiday pay, and indeed notice pay arising out of a brief period of employment that he had with the respondent company between 1 March 2019 and 11 August 2019. The claimant attended in person, but the respondent did not, no response having been entered to the Tribunal claims.[2]The respondent’s details on the claim form was given as UKPD Limited – Blank Canvas, and its address as Unit 1 Printworks, Withy Grove, Manchester, M3 2BS. The Employment Judge had conducted a Companies House search on this company and had noticed that its Registered Office address was different from the respondent’s address put on the claim form, and was in fact an address at a Business Park in Blackpool. He was initially therefore concerned that the proceedings may not have come to the attention of the respondent company.[3]The claimant confirmed that Unit 1 at the Printworks, Withy Grove, Manchester, had indeed been a restaurant at which the claimant was to have worked. It opened briefly but then closed down. The respondent, however, has a two year lease on that properly, but is no longer trading from it. The Employment Judge therefore explored with the claimant whether he could be satisfied that the claims had come to the attention of the limited company. The claimant said that they had , and indeed was able to produce to the Tribunal email communications with one Tim Sayers. Tim Sayers is indeed a director of the respondent company, and the claimant was able to produce email correspondence with Tim Sayers before the claims were issued, and indeed after they were issued. In particular Tim Sayers sent an email to the claimant on 30 October 2019 stating that UKPD Limited was now in the hands of administrators. He said in this email that the claimant would become another creditor in the list , to be apportioned when fixtures and fittings are sold. That apparently is a reference to what has subsequently happened, the claimant informed the Tribunal, in that the fixtures and fittings have been transferred to another enterprise operated by Mr Sayers, or one of his companies.[4]It is, however, incorrect for Mr Sayers to have stated that UKPD Limited was in the hands of administrators, as the Companies House search reveals no such step has yet been taken. There is thus no impediment to the claimant bringing these claims against the limited company. Furthermore, the Employment Judge was satisfied from this exchange of email correspondence, which indeed continued to 17 November 2019 when the claimant again chased payment of his unpaid holiday pay, that the respondent is indeed aware of these proceedings.[5]The Employment Judge accordingly invited the claimant to specify , and produce evidence in support of , his claims, and he confirmed that he was seeking unpaid holiday pay. He confirmed that he was paid everything that he was owed up until the termination of his employment, and that in the period of his employment he took no paid holiday. He had rightly calculated that the period of employment entitled him to 11 days’ accrued holiday, and he was therefore entitled to pay in lieu of that holiday upon termination. His salary was some £30,000 per annum and he had worked out that his daily rate was accordingly £115 gross. 11 days at £115.00 produces the gross figure of £1,265.00.[6]Whilst the claimant had ticked the box for notice pay on the claim form, he confirmed that he gave, worked, and was paid for his notice. Consequently he has no actual claim for notice pay. Thus holiday pay is the only claim that he makes, and the Tribunal accordingly makes the award set out above.[7]Finally, given that the respondent has a valid Registered Office at which it is noted that the two directors, Tim Sayers and Angela Sayers are also registered, the Employment Judge directed that the address of the respondent on the Tribunal’s records be amended to show the Registered Office address, and that is where this Judgment will be sent.[8]As explained to the claimant, the Tribunal has no role in enforcement of its judgments, which must now be left to the claimant to pursue. In the event of an insolvency (which requires some step to be taken such as Administration or Liquidation) the claim may be met by the Secretary of State.