Mr S Tomiczek v Darma London Ltd and others: 3305910/2020
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s complaint is not well founded and the case is dismissed.REASONS
[1]This matter came before me today for a Final Hearing. The Claimant claims that he had unlawful deductions made from his wages in the sum of £1,976.00.[2]The Claimant could not give the dates on which he worked, the dates when he (on his own admission) received payments which he says were made in cash, nor could he specify the exact sums which he had received.[3]The Claimant said that he worked with Jurek (an old man who was the main painter) and was helping him paint. Case Number: 3305910/2020 (V)[4]The Claimant said that the Manager (Jegosh) made payments to him and (after the third respondent said that Jurek was not employed by any of the respondents, but an independent contractor, and further that he was a joiner, not a painter) that he was working not with Jurek but with a man called Sushek, who was a spray painter (this after the Respondent had confirmed that all painting was done by spraying).[5]The Third Respondent said that neither of the men the claimant said he was working with were employed by any of the Respondents.[6]The Claimant said that he had emails which he had sent to the Respondents, but these had not been disclosed and were not before me. The Tribunal’s directions of 19 December 2020 referred.[7]The burden of proof is on the Claimant to establish, on the evidence, that he was contractually entitled to monies by way of wages which had not been paid to him.[8]On the evidence before me, he has not discharged that duty and I cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, on the evidence before me, that any monies are due from any of the three Respondents to the Claimant.[9]On that basis the claim is dismissed. 6 April 2021