Mrs D J Oliver v Catch22buses Ltd: 2421295/2017
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]Leave is given to amend the claim of discrimination to include a claim of direct sexual discrimination. This claim was then withdrawn by the claimant and is dismissed.[2]The claim of unpaid holiday pay is withdrawn by the claimant and is dismissed.[3]The claim of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was withdrawn by the claimant and is dismissed.[4]The respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and is ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of two hundred and eighty nine pounds and seventy six pence together with fourteen hundred pounds of unpaid wages (gross). The respondent is thus ordered to pay the claimant sixteen hundred and eighty nine pounds and seventy six pence in total. This sum is to be paid within 14 days hereof.REASONS
[1]Reasons have been requested by the respondent. Background. By an ET1 presented to the Tribunal on 25 October 2017 the claimant brought claims of unlawful deductions from wages, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, breach of contract, and unpaid annual leave. At the Hearing she was given leave to withdraw the claim of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and to introduce a claim of sex discrimination. Later in the Hearing she withdrew her claims of sex discrimination and unpaid holiday pay. Evidence I heard evidence from the claimant. There was no attendance by the respondent who had failed to acknowledge the ET1, had not presented an ET3, and failed, despite being given notice, to attend the hearing. The claimant’s account was credible, and I applied the evidential test ‘the balance of probabilities’ to the evidence. Facts The claimant was employed by the respondent as a bus driver from the 26 August 2016. She worked a month in hand. She had difficulty obtaining her wages from the outset. On the 4 October 2016 she received just £400.00. Thereafter she received £1200 a month net. Case No: 2421295/2017 On 22 May 2017 she was assaulted by a colleague. She was signed off on sick leave. She was befriended by her assailant and they are now partners. She was dismissed by the respondent whilst on sickness absence on 10 August 2017. She is still owed wages for the six weeks in hand that she worked. Money had been taken from her wages for damage to a bus in the sum of £289.76. She has never signed any document authorising such a deduction from her wages. Law s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 13 (1) An employer shall not make a deduction from wages of a worker employed by him unless – (a) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a statutory provision or a relevant provision of the workers contract or (b) the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of the deduction Conclusions Any deduction from the claimant’s wages for damage caused in an accident is unlawful unless she has previously signified her consent in writing to the making of the deduction. The claimant had not so signified and thus the deduction is unlawful. The claimant was paid £1200 net per month. She worked 6 weeks in hand without payment and is owed a total of £1800, less £400.00 paid on 4 October 2016. She did not signify her consent to this deduction, in writing and it is thus unlawful. Employment Judge Warren Date: 4 June 2018 (Reasons)[2]JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 16 June 2018 AND ENTERED IN THE REGISTER ………………………………………………… FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE[3]Case No: 2421295/2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs DJ Oliver Respondent: Catch22buses Limited[5]The respondent’s application dated 26/06/18 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 14/03/18 is refused. REASONS[6]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked under Rule 72 Tribunal Rules of Procedure because the respondent company received notification of the claim and hearing date. The respondent company argues that a manager failed to respond. The manager has since left. However, the claimant is entitled to certainty. It is up to the respondent company to have sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure all of their post is answered appropriately. All of the correspondence was addressed to ‘Mr. P Higgs’ at the respondent’s address in any event. The respondent has failed to provide any supporting evidence to explain why Mr. Higgs failed to open his own post or to provide sufficient supervision to be aware of post received in his name. It is not in the interests of justice to reconsider the decision made in his absence.