Mr J Litchfield and Ms C Wrigley v The Bull (Colchester) Ltd: 3204968/2022 and 3204969/2022
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. Acting Regional Employment Judge Russell Date: 28 December 2022 Case Numbers: 3204968/2022 3204969/2022 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 February 2018 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants:(1) Mr Jack Litchfield(2) Ms Charlotte Wrigley Respondent: The Bull (Colchester) Ltd Heard at: East London Hearing Centre (by CVP) On: 26 October 2023 Before: Tribunal Judge M M Thomas Representation For the Claimants: Mr J Litchfield, Litigant in Person For the Respondent: Ms J Phillips, Director of the Respondent[1]The Respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages by failing to pay the Claimants the full amount of their wages due for the final week of their employment. The Respondent agrees to pay to the(i) First Claimant, the sum of £304 being the total gross sum deducted.(ii) Second Claimant, the sum of £500 being the total gross sum deducted.[2]The Respondent is in breach of contract by dismissing the Second Claimant without notice. The Respondent agrees to pay the Second Claimant damages of £370 net for that breach. The Judgment of the Tribunal in regard to the remaining claims in issue:[3]The First Claimant’s claim of breach of contract for a failure by the Respondent to pay notice monies is dismissed.[4]The Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the Claimants in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of their employment. Case Numbers: 3204968/2022 3204969/2022 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 February 2018 The Respondent is ordered to pay to the(i) First Claimant, the sum of £1905 being the total gross sum deducted.(ii) Second Claimant, the sum of £833 being the total gross sum deducted.[5]The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimants additional compensation by way of two week’s pay pursuant to section 38 Employment Act 2002 for its failure to provide to the Claimants their written statement of employment particulars. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the(i) First Claimant, the sum of £580.(ii) Second Claimant, the sum of £740. Tribunal Judge M M Thomas 27 October 2023 Case Numbers: 3204968/2022 3204969/2022 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: (1) Mr Jack Litchfield (2) Ms Charlotte Wrigley Respondent: The Bull (Colchester) Ltd NOTICE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under Rule 69, the judgment dated 26 October 2023, sent to the parties on 17 November 2023, is corrected as set out in RED at paragraph 4(i) and (ii) of the corrected judgment. Employment Judge M Thomas Date: 11 January 2024 Case Numbers: 3204968/2022 3204969/2022 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: (1) Mr Jack Litchfield (2) Ms Charlotte Wrigley Respondent: The Bull (Colchester) Ltd[1]Rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rules(‘Rules’) requires that an application for reconsideration is made within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties. The application for reconsideration is made in time.[2]Rule 72 (1) of the Rules provides: “An Employment Judge shall consider any application made under rule 71. If the Judge considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked (including, unless there are special reasons, where substantially the same application has already been made and refused), the application shall be refused and the Tribunal shall inform the parties of the refusal. …”[3]I have not instructed the Tribunal administration to seek the response of the Claimants prior to my considering the application because, although a reconsideration request has been made, the Respondent has not identified what aspect, if any, of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment that it seeks to be reconsidered. I refer to the latter because the payments to be made to the Claimants, as recorded at paragraphs 1 and 2, were conceded by the Respondent at hearing and in pre-hearing correspondence.[4]Further, even in the absence of any direction from the Respondent in regard to its reconsideration request, having reviewed the judgment for the purposes of the latter, and bearing in mind Rule 73 of the Rules which sets out the Tribunal’s Case Numbers: 3204968/2022 3204969/2022 power to reconsider a judgment on its own initiative, I nevertheless can identify no reason to depart from my original judgment.[5]That said, there is an error in what has been recorded at paragraph 4, in that I have confused the Claimants in regard to what has been recorded as the awards for each of them for the holiday claim awards. In short, I have in error on the Judgment Order accorded the sum awarded to the First Claimant to the Second Claimant, and vice versa. My correction of this is reflected in the Corrected Judgment.[6]The Respondent’s application for reconsideration of the judgment is therefore refused.