Mr Martinez v Prestige Maintenance London Group Ltd: 3300540/2021

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3300540/2021

Between

Mr MartinezClaimant

Prestige Maintenance London Group LimitedRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Lang

In person for claimant

Not represented for respondent

Date 27 October 2021

JUDGMENT

The complaint of unlawful deductions from wages is well founded and the Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of £900

REASONS

[1]By a claim form issued on 19th January 2021 following a period of early conciliation from 19th November 2020 to 29th December 2020 the claimant brought a claim for unpaid wages.

The hearing

[2]I heard evidence from the claimant. No bundle or statements were provided to the Tribunal. The respondent did not attend the hearing. Attempts were made to contact the respondent by telephone but there was no reply and the respondent did not join the hearing. I made a decision to continue with the hearing in the absence of the respondent. I heard evidence from the claimant who was assisted by an interpreter. 1 of 3

The issues

[3]The issues in the case were: was the claimant a worker as defined by the Employment Rights Act 1996; whether the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and if so, how much was deducted? The claimant says he is owed nine days pay at £100 per day plus material costs of £50.91.

The facts

[4]The claimant says that he saw an advertisement on the Indeed website for a handyman. He went for a meeting with the respondent’s manager and he agreed terms of employment with him. There was no written contract. The claimant did not run any sort of business. He was to provide his services personally. It was agreed that for the first month of his employment he would be paid £100 per day increasing to £120 per day in the second and third month and then £150 per day after that.

[5]The claimant started work on 20th September 2020. He was not paid for the first week ( 5 days ) of his employment because the respondent said that he was keeping the wages as a deposit against any loss or damage caused. This had not previously been mentioned to the claimant who felt he had no option but to continue with his employment and not complain about it.

[6]The claimant was paid for the next nine days but complains about not being paid for the final week of his employment. He says that he worked for four days during the final week of his employment but was not paid for it. He denies the suggestion made by the respondent that he was somehow unqualified to do the work or that he had misinformed them about his capabilities.

Conclusions

[7]I am satisfied that the Claimant was a worker at all relevant times and am satisfied that the claimant was not paid for nine days of work at £100 per day. I am satisfied that there was no written contract in place and there were no agreed contractual terms about deductions. I have come to the conclusion that I cannot make any award in relation to the materials as this would constitute expenses but I am satisfied that the claim for deductions from wages is well founded and I order the respondent to pay to the claimant the sum of £900.