Mr Jorge Martins v PixiPixel Ltd: 3202462/2019
JUDGMENT
[1]The following parts of the Claimant’s claim are struck out: The allegations that he was discriminated against because of his race (nationality) contrary to s 6, 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2020 –direct race discrimination in that[1]He was less favourably treated because of his race (nationality) by being required to order his own tachograph cards;[2]He was less favourably treated because of his race (nationality) by not being given pay rise in March 2019;[3]He was less favourably treated because of his race (nationality) by having his training costs recouped from his final pay slip; And In respect of his claims for unlawful deductions from wages, contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 3. That the deduction of £649.58 from his final pay slip in respect of training costs was an unlawful deduction;[5]that the failure to pay full pay instead of SSP following a period of 2 weeks sickness absence was an unlawful deduction from his wages. 2. The remaining issue to be determined by the tribunal is the Claimant’s complaint that he was less favourably treated because of his race by being paid SSP during his period of illness from 17 June 2019 until his effective date of termination.REASONS
[1]The Claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £50.00 following a preliminary hearing held on 16 March 2020. The Order was sent to the Claimant on 8 April 2020. The Claimant has failed to pay this deposit. The complaint of direct race discrimination in that[1]He was less favourably treated because of his race (nationality) by being required to order his own tachograph cards;[2]He was less favourably treated because of his race (nationality) by not being given pay rise in March 2019;[3]He was less favourably treated because of his race (nationality) by having his training costs recouped from his final pay slip; And the claims for unlawful deductions from wages, contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996[4]That the deduction of £649.58 from his final pay slip in respect of training costs was an unlawful deduction;[5]that the failure to pay full pay instead of SSP following a period of 2 weeks sickness absence was an unlawful deduction from his wages. are therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. 2. A hearing date will be notified to the parties in due course. Employment Judge Lewis Date: 6 July 2020 Case Number: 3202462/2019 V 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr J Martins Respondent: Pixipixel Limited Heard at: London East (via CVP) On: Tuesday 29 September 2020 Before: Employment Judge John Crosfill Ms Berry Ms Boot Representation Claimant: No appearance or representation Respondent: Mr Strelitz of Counsel instructed by Lawrence Stephens Solicitors[1]This has been a remote hearing on the papers which was not objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was ‘V: Video fully (all remote)’. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable. The documents that we were referred to are in the Tribunal file, the contents of which I have recorded. The order made is below. UPON the Claimant failing to attend the hearing and failing to supply evidence to support his application for a postponement as directed by EJ Russell on 25 September 2020; AND UPON the Tribunal accepting that the Claimant had not complied with the orders of EJ Lewis made on 1 April 2020 to give disclosure of documents by 26 June 2020, to send the Respondent a Schedule of loss by 4 September 2020, to send the Respondent any witness statement by 18 September 2020; Case Number: 3202462/2019 V 2 AND UPON considering the contents of the ET1, the ET3 and the contract of employment held on the Tribunal file.[2]The Tribunal decided pursuant to rule 47 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Claimant.[3]There being no evidence from the Claimant or within the documents available to the Tribunal that he had been subjected to any less favourable treatment by the Respondent the Claimant’s claim that not paying him sick pay in excess of statutory sick pay brought under Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 is dismissed.[4]For the avoidance of doubt, all of the Claimant’s other claims had been dismissed pursuant to the judgment of EJ Lewis made on 6 July 2020.