Mr H Shah v Promise Care Services Ltd: 3201059/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: 1. The complaints of a failure to pay holiday pay and unlawful deductions from wages in respect of bank holiday wages fail and are dismissed because:a. The claims are not well-founded;b. They were brought out of time in circumstances when it was reasonably practicable to bring them in time. JUDGMENT[2]The claimant’s application for a reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 111 March 2024 is refused.REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked because:[1]All evidence and submissions had been completed by the time the claimant left the hearing.[2]At the point the claimant said he was leaving the hearing, I asked for ‘one minute’ with him to discuss length of the break he would require and timing for the remainder of the hearing, but he abruptly left the hearing.[3]The claimant had previously acknowledged there was a carer on site with his mother. The respondent’s submission was that the claimant was “annoyed”, which is why he was not prepared to have a short discussion on timing of the rest of the hearing.[4]The claimant’s paperwork on ‘time’, and on the merits if his claim were disclosed by him during the hearing, as he had not provided a witness statement or much of his paperwork prior to the hearing. This included his paperwork about the ACAS conciliation process, and his paperwork on his calculations of what he believed he was owned in holiday pay. Much of this. Evidence had not been seen by the respondent. Notwithstanding this, all the claimant's evidence was considered at the hearing, and questions asked of him.[5]While there was some confusion caused by two different hearing lengths being sent to the claimant, one of which said the hearing would be a one day full merits hearing and a two-hour case management hearing, the respondent’s Case Number: 3201059/2023 representative had contacted the claimant in the days before the hearing to make it clear it was a one-day listing.[6]The claimant was offered a break to be with his mother, but he refused this offer, saying he was logging off and he made it clear that he would not attend the rest of the hearing. It is not the case that I refused his request to be with his mother – I was attempting to accommodate this request when the claimant abruptly logged off.[7]I do not consider that in these circumstances the hearing was unfair, as the claimant was able to provide documents throughout the hearing and to give evidence on the issue of time (why he had not submitted his claim within the primary time limit) and on the merits of his claim.[8]As evidence had been concluded, I felt able to fairly give judgment; I considered whether to adjourn the hearing but in these circumstances I did not consider it was unfair to the claimant to proceed, and I believed it was in the interests of justice to give judgment at the hearing.[9]I apologise for the very lengthy delay in providing this reconsideration judgment. A request was sent to me by email in November 2023. As I had not provided written reasons by this date, I thought it best to promulgate the judgment, on which the claimant could seek reconsideration. I did not think to further provide a reconsideration judgment; this was my error. Approved by: