Ms D Mitchell-Palmer v Ms E Nanyonga and others: 3201594/2020
JUDGMENT
Upon the Respondent failing to attend the hearing and failing to present an ET3 AND Upon hearing evidence from the Claimant and reading the documents supplied by her[1]The Claimant’s claims for unlawful deduction of wages brought under Part II of the Employment rights Act 1996 is well founded.[2]The Respondent unlawfully deducted the sum of £210.97 from the Claimant’s wages for work done during the period 25 February 2020 to 9 April 2020.[3]For the purposes of Section 24(4) the Claimant has incurred financial loss of £50.00 made up of interest and charges as a consequence of the Respondent failing to pay her on time.[4]The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the said sum of £260.97. Employment Judge Crosfill 16 February 2021 Case Number: 3201594/2020 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms D Mitchell-Palmer Respondents:(1) Ms E Nanyonga(2) Parent Workers Limited(3) Ms T Gooding Heard at: East London Hearing Centre (by Cloud Video Platform) On: 9 June 2022 Before: Employment Judge B Elgot Members: Ms Y Fisher Ms P Alford Representation Claimant: did not attend and was not represented 1st Respondent: In person 2nd Respondent: Ms T Gooding, Director 3rd Respondent: In person This has been a remote hearing which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was by Cloud Video Platform. A face to face hearing was not held because the relevant matters could be determined in a remote hearing. The Tribunal gave judgment as follows:-[1]The Claimant failed to attend or be represented at the Hearing; enquiries were made by email and telephone as to the reasons for her absence but she did not respond. The Tribunal decided in accordance with Rule 47 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 to proceed with the hearing in her absence. The Tribunal considered all the information which is available to it. Case Number: 3201594/2020 2[2]The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the claims of age discrimination (including harassment) against all or any one of the Respondents DO NOT SUCCEED and are DISMISSED.[3]This is because the Claimant has shown no evidence from which the Tribunal could conclude that she was treated less favourably than others because of her protected characteristic of age.[4]We have determined that she is in the age group 19-24. There is similarly no evidence shown by the Claimant that she was harassed by all or any one of the Respondents. The Claimant has failed to show any evidence from which the Tribunal could conclude that all or any one of the Respondents engaged in unwanted conduct as defined in section 26 Equality Act 2010 which related to her age.