Miss M Towers v Adliz Leisure Ltd: 2415813/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The respondent unlawfully deducted £591.42 from the claimant’s wages, which sum it is ordered to pay her. This is a net sum and the respondent shall (if it has not done so already) account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance payments due upon it.[2]The respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars as required under s1 Employment Act 1996. In accordance with s38 Employment Act 2002 the Tribunal makes an additional award of 4 weeks pay at the rate of 68.46 per week, which amounts to the sum of £273.84REASONS
[1]The code V in the header indicates that this was a CVP hearing, held because the Tribunal considered that the issues could be determined without the need for an in person hearing. Neither party objected to that. The Employment Judge explained the procedure to the claimant, and invited her to raise any questions she may have during the course of the hearing.[2]The claimant brings a claim of unlawful deduction of wages by the Respondent. The claimant worked for the respondent at the Jolly Hatters public house on Haughton Green Road, Denton. The claimant issued a claim form on 15 October 2020 and the same was served upon the respondent at the registered address marked for the attention of the manager of the public house Adam Taylor who is also a statutory director of the respondent. The respondent was notified of the date on which a response must be made but no response was received and the respondent did not respond to any further communication from the Tribunal. 3.I was satisfied that the claim had been properly served upon the respondent and that it had received notice of this Hearing. In the circumstances I determined to proceed in the absence of the respondent who had not notified the Tribunal that it did not intend to attend.[4]It is the claimant’s case that she was employed by the respondent as a part time member of bar staff working 12 hours per week. She explained that when lockdown first commenced in March 2020 she was initially told that she was not eligible to be furloughed, however she was later told she was furloughed and received a sum of £230 followed by two payments of £68.46. She received no further monies after that and was told by Mr Taylor that she had been paid all monies that he had received for her under the ‘furlough scheme’ more properly known as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. Upon enquiry of HMRC via her personal account with them the claimant discovered that HMRC had made payments to the respondent for sums under this scheme and in respect of the claimant from 17 April 2020 to 31 July 2020. The claimant produced the documentary evidence in support of her claim.[5]Whilst there was no written agreement between the claimant and the respondent in respect of her employment being furloughed, the claimant agrees that she accepted to be paid 68.46 per week to stay at home which represents 80% of the claimant’s entitlement under the national minimum wage.[6]As referenced above the claimant has received the total sum of £366.92 from the respondent from the time she considered herself to have been furloughed. The Tribunal find that in accordance with the verbal agreement between the claimant and the respondent the ‘wages’ properly payable to her was £958.44. The Tribunal find that respondent had made a deduction from her wages that it was not entitled to make in the sum of £591.42. The respondent is ordered pay this to the claimant. It is a net sum, the claimant having given credit for the income tax payable (and possibly actually paid) by the respondent. 13.Finally, as it was apparent that the claimant was never provided with a written statement of terms of her employment, as required by s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the Tribunal is required by s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 to make an additional award of either two or four weeks’ pay, unless there are exceptional circumstances which would make it unjust or inequitable to do so. 14.The Tribunal can see no reasons not to do so, and given the wholesale failure of the respondent to provide any contract or written particulars, she awards the higher additional award of four weeks pay at the rate of 68.46 per week, a total of £273.84