Mr G Rogers v S Martin: 2501965/2024
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 £1,200.REASONS
[2]The Claimant was one of three people who presented an ET1 against Scott Martin on 20 October 2024. A Response was due by 17 December 2024 but none was returned.[3]The Claimant worked as a football coach at a summer football camp run by the Respondent for a period of six weeks commencing on 22 July 2024. Rebecca worked 5 days a week in return for which it was agreed he would be paid at the rate of £120 a day. It was agreed that he 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.[4]Mr Rogers received payment for the first 4 weeks of work. However, he was not paid his wages on 30 August 2024 for working the week commencing 19 August. Nor was he paid on 06 September 2024 for the last week of work in the week commencing 26 August 2024.[5]The failure to pay the wages on those occasions amounts to a deduction of wages for which there was no contractual or statutory authority.[6]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.[7]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 £1,200. Case No:2501965/2024 Employment Judge Sweeney _____________________________ Date: 12 February 2025 Case Nos: 2501965/2024 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr G Rogers Respondent: Scott Martin CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Under Rule 67, the judgment sent to the parties on 27 March 2025, is corrected as set out in block type at paragraphs 3 of the Reasons of the corrected judgment. Approved by: Employment Judge Sweeney 1 August 2025 SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 12 August 2025 Miss K Featherstone FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Important note to the Claimant(s) and Respondent(s): Any dates for asking for written reasons, applying for reconsideration or appealing against the judgment are not changed by this certificate of correction and corrected judgment. These time limits still run from the date the original judgment or reasons were sent, as explained in the letter that sent the original judgment. Case Nos: 2501965/2024 2 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr G Rogers Respondent: Scott Martin[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 £1,200.[2]The Claimant was one of three people who presented an ET1 against Scott Martin on 20 October 2024. A Response was due by 17 December 2024 but none was returned.[3]The Claimant worked as a football coach at a summer football camp run by the Respondent for a period of six weeks commencing on 22 July 2024. MR G ROGERS worked 5 days a week in return for which it was agreed he would be paid at the rate of £120 a day. It was agreed that he 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.[4]Mr Rogers received payment for the first 4 weeks of work. However, he was not paid his wages on 30 August 2024 for working the week commencing 19 August. Nor was he paid on 06 September 2024 for the last week of work in the week commencing 26 August 2024.[5]The failure to pay the wages on those occasions amounts to a deduction of wages for which there was no contractual or statutory authority.[6]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.[7]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 £1,200. Case Nos: 2501965/2024 3