K Crellen v D Atay: 2500993/2021
JUDGMENT
ON LIABILITY Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 The judgment of the Tribunal is that:[1]The complaint in respect of unfair dismissal is well founded and succeeds.[2]The Complaint in respect of wrongful dismissal (notice pay) is well founded and succeeds.[3]The complaint of unlawful deduction of wages is well founded and succeeds.[4]The complaint under regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998 in respect of untaken accrued holidays is well founded and succeeds.[5]The complaint under section 93 Employment Rights Act 1996 for unreasonable failure to provide a written statement of the reasons for dismissal is well founded and succeeds.[6]The hearing currently listed on 29th October 2021 shall be converted to a remedies hearing.REASONS
[7]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent from 14 October 2008 to 14 May 2021 as a shop assistant when she was dismissed without notice.[8]Proceedings were initially presented against the Respondent and served on an address in London. However, no response was received, and the address was amended and subsequently served on the Respondent at a different London address. Again, no response was returned. Therefore, in accordance with rule 21 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure an Employment Judge must decide whether on the Case Number: 2500993/2021 2 of 2 available material a determination can properly be made of the claim or part of it, and to the extent that a determination can be made, the Employment Judge must issue a judgment.[9]I am satisfied that there is sufficient information contained within the Claim Form to issue judgment against the Respondent. However, I was not in a position to deal with remedy and made appropriate directions for further information to be provided by the Claimant. Therefore, it was appropriate for a judgment to be issued in respect of liability only and for remedy to be addressed at the forthcoming hearing on 29th October 2021. Employment Judge Sweeney ` 7th October 2021 Case No: 2500993/2021 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS FINAL HEARING - REMEDY Claimant: Mrs K Crellen Respondent: Deniz Atay Heard: Remotely by video On: 9 February 2022 Before: Employment Judge S Shore Representation: Claimant: In Person Respondent: No Appearance[1]On 7 October 2021, Employment Judge Sweeney gave Judgment in favour of the claimant under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure in resepct of her claims of unfair dismissal; wrongful dismissal (failure to pay notice pay); unauthorised deduction of wages; failure to pay accrued holiday pay; and failure to provide written reasons for dismissal. This was the remedy hearing that followed that Judgment.[2]In respect of the claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal contrary to section 95 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the respondent will pay the claimant a basic award of 12 weeks’ pay - £855.36 and a compensatory award for loss of her statutory rights of £150.00. That is a total of £1,005.36.[3]In resepct of the claimant’s claim of breach of contract contrary to Article 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994, the respondent will pay the claimant £672.22.[4]In respect of the claimant’s claim of unauthorised deduction of wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the respondent shall pay the claimant £142.56.[5]In respect of the claimant’s failure to pay the claimant accrued holiday pay contrary to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the respondent shall pay the clamant £112.93. Case No: 2500993/2021[6]In respect of the claimant’s claim of unreasonable failure to provide written reasons for dismissal, contrary to section 93 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the respondent shall pay the claimant two weeks’ pay - £142.56.[7]The respondent failed to comply with the ACAS Code on Grievances and Disciplinary procedures at all, so the awards for notice pay, wages and holiday pay are increased by 25%. That is a total of £232.01.[8]The total payable by the respondent to the claimant is £2,307.64.[9]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996d not apply to any award in this Judgment. Note: This has been a remote hearing. The parties did not object to the case being heard remotely. It was not practicable to hold a face to face hearing because of the Covid19 pandemic.