Mrs A M Gaffing v Pals Packaging and Leisure Solutions Ltd and Food and Fuel Break Ltd: 2500011/2021
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages against the second respondent (Food and Fuel Break Limited) are well-founded and succeed.[2]The public preliminary hearing listed for 11th March 2022 shall proceed as a remedy hearing, at which the employment judge will consider what, if any, compensation should be ordered to be paid by the second respondent to the claimant.[3]At that hearing the tribunal will consider whether any further judgment or orders should be made against the first respondent (Pals Packaging and Leisure Solutions Limited).REASONS
[1]On 17th December 2021 Employment Judge Loy made an “Unless Order” pursuant to Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 against the second respondent Food and Fuel Break Limited. That order states:- “Unless by 31st December 2021 the second respondent writes to the tribunal, copying in the claimant and the first respondent, to explain why it failed to attend the telephone preliminary hearing in this case at 14:00 on Thursday 16th December 2021, then a judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 will be made without further reference to the second respondent or any employment judge.”[2]As at today’s date, the 6th January 2022, the second respondent has failed to comply with that order. The second respondent’s response is therefore struck out and judgment is entered for the claimant against the second respondent in respect of her complaints of unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages.[3]A public preliminary hearing is listed to take place on 11th March at 10.00am, at which the employment tribunal had intended to consider whether any further case management orders were required in this case. I order that hearing to be converted to a remedy hearing, at which the tribunal will consider what, if any, compensation should be awarded to the claimant and to be paid by the second respondent.[4]Also at that hearing, the tribunal will consider what, if any, further judgment or orders should be made concerning the first respondent. Employment Judge Johnson Date: 6 January 2022 Case No. 2500011/2021 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS CLAIMANT: Mrs A M Gaffing FIRST RESPONDENT: Pals Packaging and Leisure Solution 2 Limited SECOND RESPONDENT: Food and Fuel Break Limited HELD AT: Newcastle (by video) ON: 11 March 2022 BEFORE: Employment Judge Moss REPRESENTATION: Claimant: In person First Respondent: Mr J Singh Second Respondent: Not in attendance[1]The claims for unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages against the first respondent are dismissed upon withdrawal.[2]Upon the claimant’s successful complaint that the second respondent made an unlawful deduction from her wages, the second respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £362.75. This is the gross sum due to the claimant for holiday entitlement that had accrued and remained untaken at the date of dismissal.[3]Upon the claimant’s successful complaint against the second respondent for unfair dismissal, the second respondent shall pay to the claimant a basic award of £1738.67 and a compensatory award of £3175.52 calculated as follows: Basic Award The claimant had nine complete years of service and was 66 years of age at the date of dismissal. The claimant’s gross pay was £128.79 per week. The relevant age multiplier is 1.5 = £1738.67 Case No. 2500011/2021 2 Compensatory Award Immediate loss – 69 weeks at £112.23 (£7743.87) Reduced to 26 weeks for failure to mitigate notional earnings = £2917.98 No award for future loss of earnings was made in the circumstances. Loss of statutory rights – 2 weeks at £128.79 = £257.54. Total compensatory award = £3175.52[4]The recoupment provisions are not applicable in this case. Note: This has been a remote hearing. The parties did not object to the case being heard remotely. The form of remote hearing was V - video. It was not practicable to hold a face to face hearing because of the Covid19 pandemic and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing.