Miss K Sobisz v Hadrian Green Ltd (T/a City Laundry) and Mr Atif Malik: 2503408/2018
JUDGMENT
[1]The second respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant compensation for breach of contract (failure to pay notice pay) in the sum of one week’s wages amounting to £250.00.[2]The second respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £800.00 in respect of wages unlawfully deducted. This is a net amount and the second respondent shall be responsible for the payment of any income tax and national insurance contributions thereon.[3]The Tribunal being satisfied that the second respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment, pursuant to Section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the second respondent is ordered to pay compensation to the claimant at the rate of four weeks’ pay in the sum of £1,000.00.[4]Pursuant to section 207A(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Tribunal being satisfied that the second respondent failed to follow the ACAS code of practice before dismissing the claimant, the second respondent is ordered to pay compensation to the claimant at the rate of 25% of the total compensation ordered above (£2,050.00) in the sum of £512.50.[5]The first and second respondent are jointly and separately ordered to pay compensation to the claimant for unlawful sex discrimination and/or pregnancy/ maternity discrimination in the total sum of £11,981.00.REASONS
[6]This matter came before me this morning for consideration of the claimant’s application for a remedy pursuant to the default judgment on liability promulgated by Employment Judge Garnon on 1st March 2019. In that judgment, it recites that the claimant’s claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (breach of contract), unlawful deduction from wages, failure to pay accrued holiday pay, and direct sex/pregnancy/maternity discrimination were well-founded. Judge Garnon found that an increase in the award under Section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 should be applied at the rate of four weeks’ pay. Employment Judge Garnon recited that he did not then have sufficient information to enable him to properly calculate any sums due to the claimant by way of compensation.[7]The claimant today attended in person and gave evidence under oath. She was represented by Mr Ferguson of the Sunderland Welfare Rights Organisation. Noone attended on behalf of the first respondent or the second respondent.[8]I am satisfied from the claimant’s evidence that she had been employed by the first respondent but that it is more likely than not that her employment transferred to the second respondent under the provisions of the Transfer of Undertaking Protection Employment Regulations 1996 when the business moved from Sunderland to Washington. I am satisfied from the evidence before me that the business is now being run by the second respondent personally and that he therefore is liable for any sums due to the claimant. The claimant confirmed that she had unpaid wages on the date of her dismissal totalling £800.00. She was also entitled to one week’s notice in the sum of £250.00. The claimant was unable to show that she had accrued any unpaid holiday pay. The total sum therefore owed to the claimant is £1,050.00. Because the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment, Judge Garnon ordered that compensation should be calculated at the rate of four weeks’ pay. That amounts to £1,000.00.[9]The total compensation ordered to be paid to the claimant by the second respondent in respect of monies owed to her is therefore £2,050.00. I apply an uplift of 25% to that figure due to the second respondent’s failure to follow the ACAS code of practice. The uplift is £512.50.[10]Total compensation ordered to be paid to the claimant in respect of monies owed to her by the second respondent is £2,562.50.[11]The claimant claims loss of earnings and compensation for injury to feelings due to the second respondent’s acts of sex discrimination and pregnancy/maternity discrimination. The second respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant compensation for loss of earnings in the sum of £1,981.00 reflecting the claimant’s loss of earnings and loss of maternity pay.[12]The second respondent’s treatment of the claimant was particularly unpleasant. Having informed the claimant that she would be transferring to the Washington premises, the second respondent then simply dismissed the claimant upon learning that she was pregnant. The claimant had purchased a motor vehicle to enable her to travel to the new premises and was then left without any capital or income, knowing that her baby was due in February 2019. I accepted the claimant’s evidence as to the impact upon her of the second respondent’s acts of discrimination. The second respondent’s treatment of the claimant was sufficient to take her case out of the lower band of the Vento guidelines and into the lower part of the middle band. I am satisfied that it is just and equitable in this case to award compensation for injury to feelings in the sum of £10,000.00.[13]The first and second respondents are jointly and severally ordered to pay compensation to the claimant for unlawful sex discrimination and pregnancy/maternity discrimination in the sum of £11,981.00. EMPLOYMENT JUDGE JOHNSON