Mrs H T Zahra and Others v E H E Alrefai: 3302655/2025 and Others
JUDGMENT
[1]With regards to the First Claimant:a. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of wages from 7-30 April 2025 is well-founded. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the First Claimant the gross sum of £1,758 (8 hours per day over 18 days multiplied by hourly rate of £12.21).b. The Respondent was in breach of its duty to give the First Claimant a written statement of employment particulars. The Respondent is ordered to pay the First Claimant two weeks’ pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, which is the gross sum of £977 (8 hours per day over 10 days multiplied by hourly rate of £12.21).c. Therefore, the Respondent is ordered to pay the First Claimant the gross sum of £2,735 (£1,758 plus £977).d. The First Claimant’s complaints of protected disclosure (‘whistleblowing’) and unfair dismissal are dismissed upon withdrawal.[2]With regards to the Second Claimant: Case No: 3302655-57/2025a. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of wages from 1 April to 10 May 2025 is well-founded. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Second Claimant the gross sum of £3,430 (8 hours per day over 35 days multiplied by hourly rate of £12.21).b. The Respondent was in breach of its duty to give the Second Claimant a written statement of employment particulars. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Second Claimant two weeks’ pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, which is the gross sum of £1,172 (8 hours per day over 12 days (as this Claimant worked 6 days a week) multiplied by hourly rate of £12.21).c. Therefore, the Respondent is ordered to pay the Second Claimant the gross sum of £4,602 (£3,430 plus £1,172).[3]With regards to the Third Claimant, the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well founded. The Third Claimant failed to particularise his claim in the claim form, did not identify the exact amount he alleged was owed, produced no documentary evidence, and did not provide a witness statement. He arrived late to the hearing after being contacted to attend, remained only briefly, and did not tender himself to give sworn oral evidence. In those circumstances, there is no evidential basis upon which the Tribunal could uphold his claim. Approved