Ms S Mikusauskaite v Computer Doctor Lab Ltd: 3306417/2020

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3306417/2020
Ms S MikusauskaiteClaimantComputer Doctor Lab LtdRespondent
Employment Judge SkehanIn person for claimantNot represented for respondentDate 7 April 2021

JUDGMENT

[1]The claimant’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and breach of contract complaint are well founded and successful.[2]The respondent must pay the total sum of £4,392 to the claimant within 28 days from the date of this Judgment. The total sum of £4,392 consists of:a. £2808 relating to unpaid salary between 23 March 2020 and 27 May 2020; andb. £1584 relating to accrued but un-taken holiday entitlement.[3]The above sums are awarded gross, and the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions which may become due.[4]The Employment Tribunal administration had contacted and spoken to the respondent’s representative on 6 April 2021 to ensure they were aware of this hearing. There was no attendance on behalf of the respondent at the hearing. I was satisfied that the respondent had been properly informed and reminded of the hearing. The matter proceeded in the absence of the respondent in Case No : 3306417/2020 accordance with the provisions of Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal rules and the overriding objective to deal with this matter fairly and justly. Employment Judge Skehan Date: 7 April 2021 THY ............................................................ Note[1]Written reasons will not be provided unless a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.[2]Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.[3]This was a remote hearing which had not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was video. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and no-one requested the same and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing. The documents that I was referred to are in a bundle of 184 pages, together with the additional documents supplied during the hearing the contents of which I have noted. The order made is described above.