Miss H Grogan v Greenbrow Social Club Ltd and The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: 2420722/2020
JUDGMENT
The response is struck out.REASONS
[1]By a letter dated 24 May 2021 the Tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the response should not be struck out because the respondent had not complied with the Orders of the Tribunal[2]The respondent has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The response is therefore struck out. In any event, the respondent did indicate in box 6.1 that it did not intend to defend the claim.[3]The respondent will be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the Tribunal but will only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.[4]For the avoidance of doubt, this judgment does not affect the claim made by Miss R Dicocco, in case no. 2420720/2020. It is , however, noted that in her case to, the response indicates that the respondent does not intend to defend the claims she makes. The Tribunal will write to the parties in connection with the hearing listed for 17 August 2021.[8]Whilst she has not ticked the box for redundancy pay, the claimant has, in box 9.2 sought that. A basic award, however, exhausts any entitlement to a statutory redundancy pay, and this sum cannot be awarded twice.[9]The claimant also seeks notice pay. She has a statutory entitlement to 5 weeks notice , which at £191.84 per week, makes a potential award of £959.20. That sum is payable gross (although it is unlikely there would be any tax liability, but if there is it is the claimant and not the respondent who is responsible for it), and would be subject to deductions for any sums earned in the notice period, or any benefits received during it, and because of the dismissal. The claimant has confirmed that there were none.[10]The claimant , however, sets out her claim also seeks compensation of one week’s pay for every week between the date of her dismissal, and the date of the original hearing on 17 August 2021. The first respondent, however, went into Administration on 21 July 2021 and the Tribunal accordingly considers that it is more likely than not that the claimant’s employment would have ended then in any event. That is a period of 37 weeks from the date of dismissal.[11]The claimant has provided further information by email of 8 November 2022, in which she explains that she did not obtain alternative employment in the period after her dismissal up to the date of the Administration, as she had another job, nor did she claim benefits. Her losses therefore are the earnings she would have received between 3 November 2020 and 21 July 2021, after the initial 5 weeks notice period, as the claimant cannot claim twice in respect of the same period .[12]Based on her pre – furlough net weekly earnings of £176.76 per week, her compensatory award for loss of earnings is accordingly: 32 weeks x £176.76 = £5656.32[13]The Tribunal, given that the claimant’s employment would have ended in any event upon the Administration , does not consider it just and equitable to make any award in respect of loss of statutory rights.[14]Finally, the claimant makes a claim for holiday pay, which she calculates at £702.13, based on 3.66 weeks for 22 hours , on a 7 day week, at £8.72 per hour untaken holiday entitlement. That sum is a gross sum, (although it is unlikely there would be any tax liability, but if there is it is the claimant and not the respondent who is responsible for it)[15]To summarise, therefore, the awards of the Tribunal for the claimant are: Basic Award for Unfair Dismissal £1438.80 Compensatory Award for Unfair Dismissal £5656.32 Notice pay £959.20 Holiday Pay £702.13 which sums the first respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant without any deductions, the claimant being responsible for accounting to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due upon these sums.