Mrs J Garstang v Smooth Gym Ltd: 2417194/2018
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 The respondent having stated in its response that it did only disputed the claimant’s holiday pay claim , it is the judgment of the tribunal that:[1]The claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment is well – founded and succeeds. The claimant was employed from 31 March 2008 until she was dismissed on 31 October 2018, at age 51. Her weekly gross wage was £234.90. The claimant’s redundancy entitlement is accordingly: 15 x £234.90 £3523.50 which sum the respondent is ordered to pay her.[2]The claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages is wellfounded and succeeds. The respondent unlawfully deducted payments due to the claimant for the last 6 weeks of her employment, 180hours at the rate of £7.83 per hour in the sum of £1409.40 , gross. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the said sum of £1409.40 This is a gross sum, and the respondent shall account to HMRC for the appropriate deductions for tax and national insurance.[3]The claimant’s complaint of breach of contract is well-founded and succeeds. The claimant is entitled to 10 week’s notice , at £234.90 per week, a total of £2349.00, gross. The respondent is ordered to pay that sum to her , and shall account to HMRC for the appropriate deductions for tax and national insurance.[4]The respondent agrees, and the claimant will accept that she has an entitlement to holiday pay , 10 hours, at the hourly rate of £7.83 , in respect of untaken but accrued holiday (holiday pay), a total of £78.30 , which sum the respondent is ordered to pay her. This is a gross amount and the respondent shall be responsible for accounting to HMRC for the appropriate deductions for income tax and employee’s national insurance relating to it.[5]No further hearing will be listed. Whilst the respondent’s Director did , on 28 January 2019, request a delay “whilst the company contacts the administrators” , searches with Companies House reveal that the respondent company is not in Administration, and there is thus no reason why this judgment should not be issued.