A Lees v PMG (101) Ltd: 2500863/2022
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The Complaint in respect of unlawful deduction of wages under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded and succeeds. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the gross sum of £1,960.REASONS
[1]On 26 June 2022, the Claimant presented a Claim Form to the Tribunal in which she brought a complaint for failure to pay wages (sick pay).[2]The proceedings were first served on the Respondent on 12 July 2022, at an address given by the Claimant in the ET1. The date for service of a response was given as 09 August 2022 and a hearing was listed for 07 September 2022. No response was returned by the Respondent. However, on 10 August 2022, noting that the ET1 had not been served on the Respondent’s registered address, I proposed reserving it on that address. The Claimant agreed. Accordingly, the Claim Form was reserved on the registered office, with a new response date of 14 September 2022. However, no response was served by that date.[3]Under rule 21 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, where on the expiry of the time limit in rule 16 a response has been rejected and no application for a reconsideration is outstanding, an employment Judge shall decide whether on the available material, a determination can properly be made of the claim or part of it. If there is, the judge shall issue a judgment, otherwise a hearing must be fixed before a judge alone.[4]In her Claim Form, the Claimant set out the background to her claim. She worked 24 hours a week, prior to taking sick-leave in January 2022. Despite attempts to contact the respondent, she has not been paid since 01 February Case No:2500863/2022 2022. She has claimed that she was entitled to sick pay as follows: 9 weeks at the rate of £96.35 and 11 weeks at £99.35, making a total of £1,960.[5]In the absence of any validly presented response from the Respondent, I was satisfied that I had sufficient information to enable me to conclude that wages of £1,960 was payable to the Claimant in respect of a continuous period of sick leave over a period of 20 weeks and in respect of which she was entitled to payment. The amounts were properly payable to her each week and the deficiency must be regarded as a deduction. There was no contractual authority or written consent from the Claimant justifying any deduction. Therefore, it was appropriate for a judgment to be issued to that effect.