Ms K B Shah v Sammic Clothess Ltd: 2602916/2018
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. 27th January 2020___________ Employment Judge HeapThe Claims
[1]By a letter dated 18 November 2020 the Tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the response should not be struck out because• it has not been actively pursued.[2]The respondent has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The response is therefore struck out.[3]The respondent will be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the Tribunal but will only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. _____________________________ Employment Judge Swann Date: 04 March 2021 Case No: 2602916/2018 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms K B Shah Respondent: Sammic Clothess Limited Heard at: Leicester On: 30 June 2021 Before: Employment Judge Butler (sitting alone) Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: No attendance[1]The Claimant submitted her claim to the Tribunal on 18 December 2018 after a period of Early Conciliation. She claimed unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from her wages. Her unfair dismissal claim was struck out as she did not have the necessary period of two years’ continuous employment. The Respondent’s response was struck out because of a failure to actively pursue it.The Evidence
[2]The Claimant attended the hearing and gave oral evidence through a Gujarati interpreter, Mrs Shilpa Lodhiya, who attended by CVP and took the interpreter’s oath. The Respondent did not attend. The Issues Case No: 2602916/2018 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017The Issues
[3]The principal issue is to determine the Claimant’s effective date of termination of her employment.The Facts
[4]The Claimant’s evidence was not challenged. I find she became aware of her dismissal on 9 November 2018. At that point she had not been paid after 31 July 2018 before she had an accident on 17 August 2018 which resulted in a long period of sickness absence. She continued to submit fitness to work certificates to the Respondent until she became aware of her dismissal.[5]The Claimant is entitled to be paid at her normal rate of pay from 1 August 2018 to 16 August 2018 inclusive which is £336.69. Thereafter she is entitled to 11 weeks of statutory sick pay at the then rate of £92.05 which amounts to £1,012.55. The total award is £1,349.24. These amounts constitute unauthorised deductions from wages pursuant to s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.