Miss A Yewdall v Rest Assured Ltd: 2419455/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The respondent not disputing the claimant’s entitlement to £764.73 as wages properly due , but not paid, and therefore unlawfully deducted from her wages, the Tribunal orders the respondent to pay to the claimant the said sum of £764.73. This is a net sum, and should be paid to the claimant without any deduction of tax or national insurance, in accordance with the payslip of 31 October 2020 issued to the claimant .[2]The respondent’s contention that the claimant is not entitled to one week’s notice pay has no reasonable prospects of success, and is struck out.[3]The claimant’s claim for one week’s notice pay therefore succeeds, and the respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £307.69. This is a gross sum, and the respondent shall deduct , and account to HMRC for, any tax and national insurance due upon it.[4]The claimants’ remaining claims will be heard on 23 June 2021 as previously notified.REASONS
[1]Following the postponement of the hearing of the claimant’s claim on 31 March 2021 , the Tribunal made Orders as to the future conduct of these claims.[2]The Tribunal proposed to issue a judgment for the undisputed sum of £764.73 unlawfully deducted from the claimant’s wages, and has now done so.[3]The respondent’s contention that the claimant was not entitled to one week’s notice pay because she had not completed her probationary period , in the view of the Employment Judge had no reasonable prospects of success, and would be struck out pursuant to rule 37(1) of the rules of procedure, unless the respondent showed cause why it should not be by 15 April 2021. The Case No. 2419455/2020 2 respondent has not done so. That contention is accordingly struck out, and the respondent has no defence to the claimant’s claim for notice pay.[4]The respondent has, however, disclosed an employment contract , which it is contended that the claimant was given, and allegedly signed. The version provided to the Tribunal indeed is signed and dated 27 July 2020. Further there is handwriting on the bottom of the first page, in which the author makes reference to having endometriosis, but says this will not interfere with her work hours. This is likely to have been the claimant.[5]In the contract, clause 13 details a yearly salary of £16,000, payable by monthly instalments in arrears .[6]The claimant has claimed £316.44 as one week’s pay. Her payslip shows an hourly rate of £8.79. which produces a weekly wage of £316.44 for a 36 hour week. The claimant was not contracted to work a 36 hour week. It was more like a 35 hour week.[7]The Tribunal considers that the appropriate way to assess a week’s pay is to take the annual salary of £16,000, and divide it by 52. That is £307.69, and that will be the sum awarded by the Tribunal. If the claimant seeks to claim any higher sum, she can do so at the next hearing.[8]The claimant’s remaining claims will be considered at the next hearing.[9]The Tribunal reminds the parties of its observations in para. 13 of the Reasons for its previous orders. If these remaining claims cannot be resolved, the parties must comply with the case management orders made. In terms of further documents, the remaining issues relate to holiday pay and bonus, so any documents relevant to either of these issues must be disclosed. Witness statements are of course, also to be prepared.