Mr M Bagdatyan v DMV Logistics Ltd: 2600128/2021
JUDGMENT
The complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed is struck out.REASONS
[2]Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.[3]The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.[4]Therefore the claimant is not entitled to bring such a complaint.[5]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.[6]Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. The claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment. 10 March 2021 ________________________ Employment Judge Broughton Case No: 2600128/2021 (V) Judgment– rule 62 Reasons having been given at the hearing, written reasons will not be given unless either party requests written reasons within 14 days of this judgment being sent to them. EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr M Bagdatyan Respondent: DMV Logistics Limited Heard at: Nottingham On: 14 December 2021 Before: Employment Judge Butler (sitting alone) Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: No attendance Covid-19 statement: This was a remote hearing. The parties did not object to the case being heard remotely. The form of remote hearing was V – video. It was not practicable to hold a face-to-face hearing because of the Covid-19 pandemic.[1]This case was heard on 14 December 2021. The Respondent did not attend the hearing. Mr M Kavoc of the Respondent has sent in an apology for his non-attendance having failed to attend because he said he was too busy on the day.[2]The Respondent failed to comply with the Tribunal’s orders in a timely fashion and did not produce any documents relevant to the issues. Written reasons for my judgment were sent to the Respondent in accordance with their request.[3]In the application for a reconsideration, referred to also as an appeal in the documents sent with the application, the Respondent seems to make an argument that they should not pay all that is due to the Claimant because of damage to one of their vans caused by the Claimant. Since the Respondent did not attend the hearing, it is now too late to produce the relevant documents and make this argument. Any evidence the Respondent has, was in their possession at the time of the hearing or it should have been.[4]In any event, the issue in relation to the cost of repairs to the van was set out in my written reasons. There is no argument before me that there is good reason to find that the cost of repairs is a lawful deduction for the purposes of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Respondent has provided no documentary evidence to support such an argument and, even if it existed, it should have been produced at the hearing.[5]Under rule 72 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, it falls to me to consider an application for reconsideration and, if I find there to be no reasonable prospect of the original judgment being varied or revoked, I must inform the parties accordingly. This is a case where the Respondent Case No: 2600128/2021 11.6R Judgment – Reconsideration refused – respondent - rule 72 seeks a second bite of the legal cherry. Throughout the course of this case the Respondent has failed to deal with the issues raised by the Claimant and failed to provide the evidence upon which it apparently seeks to rely now. There is no basis upon which I consider my judgment should be reconsidered. It has no reasonable prospect of success and is refused.