Mrs A Cameron and Others v Simon Driscoll Consultancy Ltd: 2417311/2018 and Others
JUDGMENT
OF THE EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT Employment Judge Robert Gall Held In Glasgow on 5 June 2019 is due to be paid by the respondents TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) 2417312/2018 & 2417313/2018 TRIBUNAL Not represented Not present and Respondent In Person Third Claimant In Person Second Claimant In Person First Claimant the sum of are the sum of gross, in respect of wages due to her. She is also due to be paid by 2013, written reasons will not be No request for written reasons was made at the Hearing. The was not no ET3 had been lodged by the respondents, Mr Driscoll had appeared. The by lodging form ET3 late, applying for that to be received and setting out any although late was explained to him. He stated his intention and provided an payment of wages due to her. The (3) Ms Laing is due to be paid by the respondents the sum of £2500, of mobile phone charges Tribunals provided unless they are asked for by any party at the Hearing itself or by written request presented by any party within 1 4 days of the sending of the written record following sets out what was said, after adjournment, at the conclusion of the hearing. This case called for hearing at Glasgow on 5 June 201 9. All three claimants A Preliminary Hearing had taken place at Glasgow on 5 March 2019. Although procedure in terms of which the respondents could seek to defend the claim explanation as to why, in the view of the respondents, it should be received undertaking that he would submit form ET3 immediately after that PH. Despite due to her. The respondents him that money being a breach of contract. The respondents were present. The respondents were not present. Their attendance As stated at the Hearing, in terms of Rule 62 of the Employment (2) Mrs Cameron is due to be paid by the respondents however expected given that they had not lodged form ET3. respondents are ordered to pay that amount to her. the respondents £16.67 in reimbursement are ordered to pay those amounts to her. and £118.83 in respect of commission ordered to pay those amounts to him. that, no form ET3 appeared with the Tribunal. (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) RegulationsREASONS
£1554.60, gross, representing It is provided for the convenience of parties. 241731 1/2018 & others of the decision. 1 . 2. 5 15 20 20 15 30[9]8. Mr Thompson 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2417311/2018 given by the respondents. however, that he gave them one month’s Mr Thompson resigned from employment with the respondents. awarded. The respondents has not been paid to him by the respondents. for that time the sum due to him is £3972.22, gross. I am satisfied that this was employed in November 2018. Calculating his salary on a pro rata basis I accepted that Mr Thompson them. their evidence. That evidence was supported by the productions I was satisfied that all of the witnesses were credible and reliable. I accepted employment and payslips where available. contracts, Laing. The claimants all lodged documents. At the hearing I heard evidence from Mr Thompson, Mrs Cameron and Ms representation It was therefore perhaps It was confirmed that those hearings would proceed as undefended. respondents were not permitted to defend the claims at the hearing on 5 June. response form, form ET3, had been received in respect of the claims, the A letter was sent to the respondents was received however whether prior to 2 April or after that date. presented, if the claims were to be defended, by 2 April 2019. No form ET3 occurred. They were served on 5 March 2019. Form ET3 was due to be administration set of claims. The Employment had not been served upon the respondents. Those were identical to the first At the PH on 5 March it became clear that the second set of claims lodged & others with immediate bank statements, by the respondents to serve those second claims upon the respondents. effect. That constitutes dismissal. not surprising that there was no appearance are ordered to pay that sum to him. Page 3 Mr Thompson had not been paid for the time during which he letters exchanged Judge who heard the PH requested notice. The respondents at the hearing on 5 June. on 15 April 2019 confirming attended Those comprised Judgment for that amount is at time of termination the premises No notice was accepted When he did employment lodged by that as no of the this, This the of or respondents and carried out work for them for the period of one week after his resignation was submitted. He is due wages in respect of that week. The sum due to him is £1057.69 gross. I am satisfied that this has not been paid and was not was £1554.60. I am satisfied that this has not been paid to her by the are She resigned. The letter confirming that resignation was accepted also confirms sums due to her Those sums are her pro rata salary of £2500 gross, and commission amounted to £118.83. I am satisfied that those sums have not been paid to her by the respondents. I noted that the letter confirming liability It was signed prior to resignation by Mr Thompson. He was at that point the chief operating officer of the respondents. I was satisfied he had authority to issue this letter. It was for those amounts is by the respondents. Judgment for that amount is awarded. The respondents paid for that month. Her gross monthly amount payable by the respondents awarded. The respondents are ordered to pay those amounts to Ms Laing. respondents. Judgment for that amount is awarded. The respondents £16.67 Mrs Cameron worked in November 201 8 for the respondents to amounting Ms Laing worked for a short period for the respondents. to Mr Thompson that Ms Laing reported. Judgment for those amounts was signed by Mr Thompson. charges ordered to pay that amount to Mrs Cameron. 17 June 2019 Page 4 phone 5 June 2019 are ordered to pay that sum to him. R Gall of mobile by the respondents. 241731 1/2018 & Others