Mrs J Paget v Create Construction Ltd (in Administration) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: 2414317/2021
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s claim of unpaid wages against the first respondent is wellfounded. The first respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,423.00.[2]The claimant’s claim of breach of contract (unpaid notice pay) against the first respondent is well-founded. The first respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £9,250.00.[3]The claimant’s claim in respect of payment for annual leave accrued but untaken at the date of termination of employment against the first respondent is well-founded. The first respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,245.19.REASONS
[1]The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 15 October 2021 due to the collapse of the first respondent, which subsequently entered administration on 27 October 2021.[2]The claimant was not paid her wages for the work she had done in October, nor was she paid notice pay, nor outstanding accrued holiday pay.[3]The claimant brought claims for these sums by way of a claim form presented to the Tribunal on 1 November 2021. She also brought a claim for a Protective Award under s.189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal received numerous claims from other former employees in similar circumstances.[4]By a letter dated 15 November 2021, the Administrators gave their consent for the claimant’s Tribunal claim to proceed. That consent was not limited (as is often the case) to the claim for the Protective Award.[5]The Protective Award claims were dealt with first, and, following a hearing on 30 August 2022, a Judgment was issued making a Protective Award in respect of a group of claimants, including Mrs Paget. The Tribunal then wrote to those claimants who had other claims (and had the Administrators’ consent to pursue those claims) to confirm if they wished to do so.[6]This hearing was listed following Mrs Paget’s indication that she wished to pursue her remaining claims against the respondent. Mrs Paget gave evidence as to her employment and the circumstances of its termination. She gave evidence about the period for which she did not receive wages, her contractual notice entitlement and her holiday pay entitlement. She produced calculations for these amounts which I was satisfied were accurate. Accordingly, I am satisfied on the basis of her uncontested evidence that the sums set out in the Judgment are sums owed by the first respondent.[7]Mrs Paget had also asked me to award sums in relation to pension contributions that the first respondent would have been due to make in respect of the final weeks of her employment and her notice period. I declined to do this as pension contributions are not within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal.[8]I have explained to Mrs Paget that the fact that she now has a Judgment does not mean that she will be able to recover those sums in full out of the Administration. The extent to which she will actually receive payment is a matter between her and the Administrators.[9]The second respondent did not employ Mrs Paget. It is a party to the claim in its capacity as statutory guarantor. Mrs Paget acknowledges that she has received payments from the Insolvency Service in respect of redundancy pay and, following the last Judgment, her Protective Award. She was not sure whether she had received payments in respect of outstanding wages or notice pay. It may well be that she has, although given the circumstance of the business it is highly unlikely that this will lead to any double recovery. For the avoidance of doubt, this Judgment does not purport to place any additional liability on the second respondent.