Ms K Morgan v A Dean T/a Ardent: 3302724/2020
JUDGMENT
Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Response[1]The Respondent failed to present a response to the claim and judgment is entered in favour of the Claimant as follows. 1.1. The Claimant was unfairly dismissed. 1.2. The Claimant was wrongfully dismissed. 1.3. The Claimant suffered unauthorised deductions from wages. 1.4. The Claimant was not given a written statement of employment particulars. 1.5. The Claimant was not provided with pay statements. 1.6. The Claimant was owed holiday pay. 1.7. The Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice.[2]No later than 21 days after this judgment is sent to the parties the Claimant shall send to the Tribunal, with a copy to the Respondent, a statement setting out the claim in monetary terms showing how all sums are calculated. It shall also include details of attempts to mitigate loss by seeking new employment and current employment and earnings. Where appropriate and available, supporting documents shall be included.[3]The case will now be listed for a 3 hours remedy hearing before an Employment Judge sitting alone. The Respondent will only be entitled to take part in this hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge who hears the case.[4]The parties are informed that all judgments and reasons for judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the Claimant and Respondent. Case Number: 3302724/2020 Page 2 of 2 ______________________ Employment Judge Vowles 15 May 2020 Sent to the parties on ……30 July 2020…………….. ……………….……………...…….. for the Tribunal Office Case No: 3302724/2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Karen Morgan V Andrew Dean, T/As Argent Heard at: Watford CVP On: 15 December 2020 Before: Employment Judge Allen sitting alone Appearances For the Claimant: L Barnes, LJB Legal Services For the Respondent: In person[1]S13 Employment Rights Act 1996 the claimant suffered unauthorised deductions from wages in that she received no wages between 1 August 2019 and 26 November 2019 (less £2,000 received from the respondent ad hoc). The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the net sum of £4,300.54[2]The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the gross sums of: Basic award £6,075.00 Compensatory Award £23,400.00 Case No: 3302724/2020REASONS
Details £ £ Age at EDT 54 Commenced Employment 01/04/2010 Effective Date of Termination (EDT) 26/11/2019 Years of continuous service (April 2010 – November 2019) 9 Remedy hearing date 15/12/2020 Cut-off date for future loss of earnings (12 months after EDT) 26/11/2020 Statutory notice period (weeks) 9 Net daily pay at EDT 92.55 Gross daily pay at EDT 112.50 Net weekly pay at EDT 370.62 Gross weekly pay at EDT 450 Holiday entitlement accrued but unused at EDT 22.4 days accrued minus 9 days used Days 13.4 Employer’s Pension contribution Monthly 43.14 Basic award Qualifying weeks (9 x 1.5) 13.5 x £450 gross weekly pay 6,075.00 6,075.00 Compensatory award Immediate loss (subject to max of £525 per week at EDT) Loss of net earnings: Number of weeks (52) x Net weekly pay (£370.62) 19,272.24 Loss of statutory rights Amount as the tribunal thinks fit up to £500 500.00 Accrued holiday pay 22.4 days accrued 9 days used 13.4 days accrued but not used x net daily rate £92.55 1,240.17 Pension loss (employers’ contributions) Loss of employer of £43.14 per month x 12 months 517.68 Less earnings: 26/11/2019 - 26/11/2020 0 Failure to Provide S1 statement 4 weeks' pay 1,800 Immediate loss 23,330.09 Case No: 3302724/2020 ACAS uplift failure by employer to follow statutory procedures 25% uplift 5832.52 Total compensation Claimed 29,162.61 S124 Employment Rights Act 1996 Total award capped at lower of Gross annual salary (23,400) or £88,518 23,400 Unlawful deduction from wages claimant went unpaid for 17 weeks 1/08/2019 - 26/11/2019 (17 weeks x £370.62) minus (£2000 rec’d) 4,300.54 4,300.54 No Order is made in respect of the overlapping claim regarding wrongful dismissal.