Mr C Woodcock v Ethical Pay Ltd: 2500981/2024
JUDGMENT
ON LIABILITY AND REMEDY Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows:[1]The complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages in the period 1 April 2024 to 14 April 2024.[2]The respondent shall pay the claimant £1903.23, which is the gross sum deducted. The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or national insurance.[3]The complaint in respect of holiday pay is well-founded. The respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with Regulations 14(2) and 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.[4]The respondent shall pay the claimant £605.78. The claimant is responsible for paying any tax or national insurance.[5]Total award = £2,509.01REASONS
[1]The claimant submitted his ET1 form to the Employment Tribunal on 16 May 2024. A copy of the claim form was forwarded to the respondent at their registered office address by the Tribunal on 24 May 2024 and the respondent had until 21 June 2024 to file a response. No response has been received from the respondent.[2]The claimant provided further information about the claims in accordance with the enquiries made by the Tribunal on 1 July 2024 setting out the amounts claimed for wages and holiday pay. The claimant provided a copy of his final pay slip showing his entitlement to wages in the sum of £1903.23 which had not been paid by the respondent. The claimant claims payment for 3 days accrued and outstanding holiday pay as at the date his employment came to an end. Case No:2500981/2024[3]As no response has been received by the Tribunal from the respondent, the above Judgment has been entered without a hearing on the basis of the information provided by the claimant and in accordance with Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. Employment Judge Arullendran Date: 17 July 2024 Note: This has been a remote hearing which has not objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was on the papers. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, no-one requested the same and all the issues could be determined in a remote hearing.