Mr P Dunleavy v The Broadway Pub Company Ltd: 2501690/2022
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claim of unlawful deduction of wages (arrears of pay) is well-founded and succeeds. 1.1. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the gross sum of £552.88.REASONS
[1]On 19 October 2022, the Claimant presented a Claim Form to the Tribunal in which he brought a complaint of unlawful deduction of wages (under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996), and notice pay. He subsequently confirmed that he was not claiming anything in respect of notice pay.[2]The proceedings were served on the Respondent at the address provided by the Claimant with a response date of 25 November 2022. However, no response was served. It was later re-served at the Respondent’s registered address with a response date of 13 June 2022. Again, however, no response was received.[3]Under rule 21 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, where on the expiry of the time limit in rule 16 no response has been presented and no application for a reconsideration is outstanding, an employment Judge shall decide whether on the available material, a determination can properly be made of the claim or part of it. If there is, the judge shall issue a judgment, otherwise a hearing must be fixed before a judge alone.[4]The Claimant worked 40 hours a week and was paid a gross weekly wage of £480.77. As at the date of termination of employment, he had not been paid gross salary of £480.77 in respect of having worked the week of 08 August 2022 and £372.11 in respect of having worked 6 hours in the week of 15 August Case No:2501690/2022 2022. The Claimant has provided a breakdown of his weekly pay and has sent text messages between him and his former employer and bank statements..[5]In the absence of any response from the Respondent, and based on the information contained in the ET1 and further information provided by the Claimant, I was satisfied that I had sufficient information to enable me to conclude that the total wages of £552.88 remained due to the Claimant and were properly payable on termination and that the Respondent had failed to pay those wages. Therefore, I was able to issue a judgment against the Respondent.