Miss S Oliwkiewicz v Julia Polski Sklep Ltd: 3309944/2021
JUDGMENT
No Response having been provided in this case, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Judgement is given for the claimant in respect of her claims for outstanding wages, outstanding holiday pay and notice pay. The claimant does not have the statutory 2-year continuous service for a complaint of unfair dismissal so that claim is dismissed.REASONS
[1]The claimant, Miss Sara Oliwkiewicz, was employed as a shop assistant by the Respondent, Julia Polski Sklep Limited, between 16 November 2020 and 12 March 2021 when she was dismissed.[2]Having gone through early conciliation, on 18 May 2021 she presented complaints of unfair dismissal, for notice pay, holiday pay and unpaid wages to the Tribunal. The claim of unfair dismissal was rejected because she lacked sufficient qualifying service, but the other claims were accepted and served on the respondent.[3]The respondent failed to enter a response and Employment Judge Tobin granted judgment on liability for the accepted claims under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. He directed that a remedy hearing be listed to determine the amounts to be awarded (a Remedy Hearing). The Tribunal’s administration sent this judgment to the parties on 27 September 2021. Case Number: 3309944/2021 PHCM Order (NEW August 2020) 2 of 2 August 2020[4]The Remedy Hearing came before me today and the claimant was represented at it by her partner, Mr Rafal Luczak. In an email sent to the Tribunal the day before the hearing, Mr Luzcak drew our attention to the fact that the respondent is shown as “dissolved” on the register of companies. The dissolution took place on 8 February 2022.[5]In discussion at the hearing today Mr Luczak mentioned a number of things which, if accurate, suggest that the directors or agents of the respondent may have defrauded the Covid retention scheme operated by the Government and impacted the claimant’s ability to claim benefits following her dismissal. He mentioned that he had reported this to the authorities on more than one occasion. I explained that there was nothing that I could do in that regard.[6]I also explained, and it was clear that Mr Luczak was aware, that I could not make an award of compensation against a company that had been dissolved. Accordingly, I did not enter judgment for a sum in respect of remedy. This is no reflection on the underlying merits of the claimant’s claims.