Mr M Foster v Jaspers Catering North East Ltd (T/a Jaspers Catering Services): 2500979/2020
JUDGMENT
The response is struck out.REASONS
[1]By a letter dated 1st February 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 Order of the Tribunal dated 21st October 2020.• it has not been actively pursued because the Respondent had failed to dial in to the telephone hearing on 29th January 2021.[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.[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. G Johnson_____________________________ Employment Judge Johnson 9 March 2021 Case No: 2500979/2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr M Foster Respondent: Jaspers Catering North East Limited (in liquidation) (trading as Jaspers Catering Services) Heard at: Newcastle Hearing Centre (by CVP) On: 11 June 2021 Before: Employment Judge Morris Representation: Claimant: in person Respondent: no representation[1]The claimant’s complaint that his dismissal by the respondent was unfair contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the Act”) is wellfounded in that the reason for his dismissal was either or both that1.1 he had raised with the respondent health and safety issues in the circumstances envisaged in section 100(1)(c) of the Act, and/or1.2 he had made a protected disclosure as provided for in section 103A of the Act.[2]In respect of that unfair dismissal, the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant a compensatory award of compensation of £5,528.[3]The claimant’s complaint that he was subjected to detriment by the respondent on the ground that3.1 he had raised with the respondent health and safety issues in the circumstances envisaged in section 44(1)(c) of the Act, and/or3.2 he had made a protected disclosure as provided for in section 47B of the Act is well-founded. Case No: 2500979/2020[4]In respect of being subjected to such detriments, the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant compensation of £3,231.20.[5]The claimant’s complaint that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from his wages in contravention of Section 13 of the Act is wellfounded.[6]In respect of that unauthorised deduction the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the amount of that deduction of £103.11.[7]The claimant’s complaint that the respondent was in breach of his contract of employment by not giving to him the one week’s notice of the termination of his employment to which he was entitled in accordance with Section 86 of the Act is well-founded.[8]In respect of that breach of contract the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant compensation of £162.[9]The award referred to in paragraph 6 above has been calculated by reference to the claimant’s gross pay and should there be any liability to income tax or employee’s national insurance contributions in respect of that award, that shall be the liability of the claimant alone. The remainder of awards referred to above have been calculated by reference to the claimant’s net pay and, therefore, should there be any liability to income tax or employee’s national insurance contributions in respect of those awards, that shall be the liability of the claimant alone.[10]The Recoupment Regulations do not apply to any of the above awards.[11]Any contract claim brought by the respondent pursuant to article 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 is dismissed. EMPLOYMENT JUDGE MORRIS