Mrs B Belkadi v Edward Jones Estate Agents and others: 2601614/2018
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The respondent(s) have made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in that they have failed to pay the claimant the national minimum wage. The respondent(s) are ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £1565.60 being the amount of the deduction and a further sum of £350.00 under Section 24 (2) Employment Rights Act 1996.[2]The respondent has failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £626.40.[3]It is declared that the respondent(s) have failed to provide the claimant with itemised pay statements contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[4]The respondent(s) failed to comply with ERA sections 1 and 4 in relation to the claimant and must pay her a further sum of £1252.80 pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, being an amount equal to 4 weeks’ pay.[5]The total sum payable to the claimant by the respondent(s) is £3794.80. Case No: 2601614/2018REASONS
[1]This is an application by the third respondent, Mr Ashar Shuja, for reconsideration of the Rule 21 Judgment dated 19 November 2018.[2]The application was made by email dated 8 February 2019 on the following grounds:a. Mr Shuja had not received any letter due to him not being in the office;b. Real Life Estates had stopped trading and been taken over by Up Market Estates and during the swap the office was closed and under renovation;c. Mr Shuja is only an employee and had no idea his name was on the case.[3]The third respondent’s application for reconsideration was sent to the claimant to provide her with the opportunity to respond, she did so by letter dated 19 February 2019, in which she objected to the application. The claimant in summary submitted:a. The third respondent was notified of her intentions via ACAS through early conciliation;b. The third respondent had signed her notice letter and described himself as a director;c. The third respondent only resigned from his title following the beginning of the claim;d. The third respondent has given false information;e. The office has never been closed for refurbishment. Case No: 2601614/2018 11.1R Reconsideration – non compliance – respondent - Rule 71[4]The notice of claim was issued against all respondents on 30 July 2018 at the address 72 Dallow Street, Burton on Trent, DE14 2PQ. This followed a period of early conciliation, against all respective respondents; for the third respondent the period of conciliation was 28 June 2018 to 10 July 2018. The early conciliation certificate had also been sent to the address at 72 Dallow Street.[5]No response was entered by any of the respondents and a notice of remedy hearing following non presentation of response was listed for 19 November 2018. Again that was served on the respondents at 72 Dallow Street.[6]The claim had been issued against multiple respondents as the claimant had not been provided with a statement of particulars of employment. The claimant’s evidence at the hearing on 19 November 2018 was that her employers were Mr Imran Ahmed and Mr Ashar Shuja who were business partners. The claimant produced a letter at the hearing on 19 November 2018 which was undated but had been written by Mr Ashar Shuja the third respondent. In that letter Mr Shuja dismissed the claimant and signed himself as “Director, Edward Jones Estate Agents”.[7]The Rule 21 Judgment was sent to all of the respondents by post to 72 Dallow Street and also emailed to the third respondent to an email address taken from his business card that the claimant submitted as evidence at the remedy hearing.[8]The application for reconsideration was made more than 14 days from the date the decision was sent to the parties. Having considered the grounds in the application, there is nothing in the application that leads me to conclude there has been an acceptable explanation for the delay. There is no plausible explanation backed with credible evidence as to why the third respondent would not have received the early conciliation certificate, notice of claim, notice of hearing or judgment all sent to 72 Dallow Street and emailed to the third respondent to an email address on his own business card.[9]For these reasons I am not satisfied it would be in the interest of justice for the requirement to apply for reconsideration within 14 days to be dispensed with. The application is therefore rejected.