Mr G Matthews v Tees Valley Community Asset Preservation Trust: 2501191/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]Mr G Matthews’ complaint that the respondent breached his contract of employment and made unlawful deductions from wages by paying him for 7.5 hours per weekend shift worked instead of 8.5 hours is well founded. With regard to remedy for this complaint:a. Unless the parties can agree the amount owing, there will be a separate hearing (which may be by video) to determine the amount owing.b. Mr G Matthews must write to the Tribunal and the respondent by 15 July 2022 setting out the amount he claims is owing, calculated by reference to the number of weekend shifts he worked between 12 December 2018 and 31 March 2020 and the shortfall of an hours’ pay for such shifts.c. The respondent must write to the Tribunal within 7 days of receiving this judgment or 7 days of receiving Mr Matthews’ calculation (whichever date is later) saying whether or not it agrees that the amount due is as stated by Mr Matthews and that a judgment should be made ordering the respondent to pay that amount. If the respondent does not agree that the amount due is as stated by Mr Matthews it must say why and provide its own calculation of the amount due.[2]Mr G Matthews’ complaint that the respondent breached his contract of employment and made unlawful deductions from wages by failing to pay £76.50 for each Sunday in the period 1 April 2020 to 31 May 2020 is well founded. The respondent is ordered to pay the amount owing of £220.50 (ie 9 x 76.50 = £688.50 less the amount actually paid of £468).[3]Mr G Matthews’ complaint that the respondent breached his contract of employment and made unlawful deductions from wages by failing to pay him notice pay for the period 1 - 8 June 2020 is well founded. The respondent is ordered to pay the amount owing of £76.50.[4]Mr Matthews’ complaint that the respondent breached his contract of employment by failing to pay an amount due to him in respect of accrued untaken holiday in the leave year ending on 31 March 2019 is well founded. The respondent is ordered to pay damages of £10.25.[5]Mr G Matthews’ complaint that the respondent failed to pay the full amount due to him under regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, for leave taken in the leave year ending on 31 March 2020 (ie on 19 October 2019, 12 December 2019 and one day in March 2020), is well founded. With regard to remedy:a. Unless the parties can agree the amount owing, there will be a separate hearing (which may be by video) to determine the amount owing.b. Mr G Matthews must write to the Tribunal and the respondent by 15 July 2022 setting out the amount he claims is owing.c. The respondent must write to the Tribunal within 7 days of receiving this judgment or 7 days of receiving Mr Matthews’ calculation (whichever date is later) saying whether or not it agrees that the amount due is as stated by Mr Matthews and that a judgment should be made ordering the respondent to pay that amount. If the respondent does not agree that the amount due is as stated by Mr Matthews it must say why and provide its own calculation of the amount due.[6]Mr Matthews’ complaint that the respondent breached his contract of employment by failing to pay an amount due to him in respect of accrued untaken holiday in the leave year ending on 31 March 2020 is well founded. The respondent is ordered to pay damages of £76.50.[7]Mr G Matthews’ complaint that the respondent failed to pay the amount due to him on the termination of his employment under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, for leave accrued and untaken between 1 April 2020 and 8 June 2020, is well founded. The respondent is ordered to pay the amount owing of £81.[8]When these proceedings were begun, the respondent was in breach of its duty to Mr Matthews under section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (duty to give statement of employment particulars). The respondent is ordered to pay to Mr G Matthews an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 in the sum of £153 (2 weeks’ pay).[9]The following of Mr Matthews’ complaints are not well founded:a. The complaints that the respondent further breached Mr G Matthews’ contract of employment and/or made more extensive unlawful deductions based on an allegation that the express contract terms entitled him to be paid until 6pm (rather than 5.30pm) or, alternatively, that work done after 5.30pm entitled him to additional remuneration by virtue of section 17 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.b. The complaint of unfair dismissal. Employment Judge Aspden Date____12 July 2022______ Note Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.REASONS
[1]By an email dated 23 July 2023, the claimant seeks reconsideration of one element of my Judgment that was given orally at a hearing on 11 July 2022 and sent to the parties on 20 July 2022. By that judgment I dismissed the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal against the respondent.[2]A tribunal has power to reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so: Rule 70. The claimant’s application for a reconsideration under r 71 must first be considered by me on the papers. If I consider there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, I must refuse the application. If I consider that there is some reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked I must seek a response from the respondent and seek the views of the parties on whether the matter can be determined without a hearing.[3]Simler P said in Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0002/16/DA: “A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to seek to re-litigate matters that have already been litigated, or to reargue matters in a different way or adopting points previously omitted. There is an underlying public policy principle in all judicial proceedings that there should be finality in litigation, and reconsideration applications are a Case No: 2501191/2020 limited exception to that rule. They are not a means by which to have a second bite at the cherry, nor are they intended to provide parties with the opportunity of a rehearing at which the same evidence and the same arguments can be rehearsed but with different emphasis or additional evidence that was previously available being tendered. Tribunals have a wide discretion whether or not to order reconsideration.”[4]The basis of the claimant’s application, in essence, is that he disagrees with my assessment of the evidence and is seeking to reargue the case. The claimant is of course entitled to disagree with my assessment of the evidence. That is not a proper basis on which to overturn the judgment, however.[5]There is nothing in the grounds advanced on behalf of the claimant that could lead me to vary or revoke my decision. I consider there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. It follows that I must refuse the application.