Miss J Edwards and Others v Joanne Murray (executor of the estate of Mr Kenneth Murray, deceased): 2415279/2018 and Others
JUDGMENT
[1]The respondent is liable for an unlawful deduction from Miss Edwards’ wages and is ordered to pay Miss Edwards the sum of £1,120.08 subject to such deductions as she is required to make for tax and national insurance.[2]The respondent is liable for an unlawful deduction from Miss Thorpe’s wages and is ordered to pay Miss Thorpe the sum of £609.86 subject to such deductions as she is required to make for tax and national insurance.[3]The respondent is liable for an unlawful deduction from Miss Jones’ wages and is ordered to pay Miss Jones the sum of £290.94 subject to such deductions as she is required to make for tax and national insurance[4]Miss Thorpe is entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,680.00.[5]Miss Jones is entitled to a redundancy payment of £635.00. The total amounts payable by the respondent to each claimant is as follows: Miss Edwards - £1,120.08 Miss Thorpe - £2,289.86 Miss Jones - £925.94 (The respondent is responsible for deducting the appropriate amount of tax and national insurance in respect of the amounts stated in paragraphs 1 to 3. The respondent should be able to calculate the total amount of the deductions from the claimants’ payslips, but may wish to seek advice.)REASONS
[1]The respondent has never denied that she is liable to pay arrears of wages to Miss Thorpe and Miss Jones and accepts that they are entitled to redundancy payments. Initially the respondent questioned whether Mr Murray (deceased) had employed Miss Edwards, but Miss Edwards has since provided evidence that she was employed and the respondent has not raised the query in later correspondence. The respondent has always accepted that if Miss Edwards was employed, she should be paid her outstanding wages.[2]By letter dated 31 January 2019 the tribunal informed the parties that I proposed to issue a judgment without a hearing and gave the respondent until 14 February 2019 to request a hearing. The respondent has not made such a request.[3]By letter dated 6 March 2019 the parties were informed of the proposed terms of the judgment. The claimants were given until 2 April 2019 to make representations as to the amounts stated in the draft judgment. The claimants did not make any such representations.[4]The respondent e-mailed the tribunal on 29 March 2019 asking for the format of the judgment to be altered so that it would indicate the total amounts payable in respect of each claimant. She also asked for a loan of £500 to Miss Thorpe to be deducted from the amount ordered to be paid. Her e-mail also alleged that one of the claimants had inappropriately contacted the claimant on social media.[5]In my view none of these points stand in the way of my issuing a judgment in the terms proposed on 6 March 2019. If Miss Thorpe owes the respondent a debt of £500, the repayment cannot lawfully be deducted from her wages unless she authorised the respondent to make such a deduction in one of the ways prescribed in section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent should take advice about other legal avenues for recovering money owed to her. It is very much to be hoped that, once the claimants have been paid what is owed to them, all parties will exercise restraint in the ways in which they communicate using social media.