Mr S Bingham v Just Wheels Trade Ltd and Just Wheels Trade: 2501247/2024 and 2501834/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]All claims against the second respondent are not well-founded and are dismissed.[2]The claimant’s complaint of unlawful deduction from wages against the first respondent is not well-founded and is dismissed on withdrawal.[3]The claimant’s complaint of non-payment of holiday pay against the first respondent is not well-founded and is dismissed on withdrawal.[4]The claimant’s complaint of breach of contract (non-payment of notice pay) against the first respondent is well-founded and the first respondent is ordered to pay the claimant four weeks pay namely £1762.96. It is not just and equitable to make an adjustment under section 207A Trade Union and Labour relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[5]The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal against the first respondent is well-founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed[6]It is just and equitable to reduce the claimant’s basic award by 50% because of his conduct before dismissal. The respondent shall therefore pay the claimant a basic award of £1008 (£2016 less 50%)[7]The claimant’s claim for a compensatory award is dismissed.[8]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 do not apply. 9..When the proceedings were begun the first respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. There were no exceptional circumstances that made an award of an amount equal to 2 weeks gross pay unjust or inequitable. It was not just and equitable to make an award of amount of four weeks pay. In accordance with section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 respondent therefore is ordered to pay the claimant £1008.[10]The first respondent’s contractual counterclaim under case number 2501834/2024 is not well-founded and is dismissed.