R Johnson v S Martin: 2501963/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim for unlawful deduction of wages is well founded and succeeds. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £600.[2]The Hearing on 17 February 2025 is cancelled.REASONS
[3]The Claimant presented an ET1 against Scott Martin on 20 October 2024. A Response was due by 17 December 2024 but none was returned.[4]The Claimant and her sister, Hannah, worked as football coaches at a summer football camp run by the Respondent for a period of six weeks commencing on 22 July 2024. Rebecca worked 3 days a week in return for which it was agreed she would be paid at the rate of £100 a day. Hannah worked 2 days a week, in return for which it was agreed she would be paid at the same rate. It was agreed that they would be paid on the Friday of the following week. Therefore, the relevant pay dates for each of the 6 weeks of work were: 02, 09, 16, 23, 30 August and 06 September 2024.[5]Rebecca received payment for the first 4 weeks of work, albeit payment was made late. However, she was not paid her wages on 30 August for working the week commencing 19 August. Nor was she paid on 06 September for the last week of work in the week commencing 16 August 2024. Although she received payment on 30 August 2024, that was in respect of weeks 3 and 4. She was not paid the £300 wages due to her on that date in respect of the previous week (week 5). Nor was she paid the wages due on 06 September in respect of her final week (week 6).[6]The failure to pay the wages of £300 on 06 September 2024 was the last in a series of failures which amount to a deduction of wages, for which there was no contractual or statutory authority.[7]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 Case Nos: 2501963/2024 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.[8]I was satisfied that I had sufficient information to issue a judgment under rule 21 of the ET Rules and that the total amount due to the Claimant was £600.