Mr J Zimnica v PMP Recruitment (in Administration) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: 3315450/2020
JUDGMENT
The complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed is struck out.REASONS
[2]Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.[3]The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.[4]Therefore the claimant is not entitled to bring such a complaint.[5]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.[6]Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. The claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment. ________________________ Employment Judge Ord Date: 29 March 2021[1]Pursuant to my case management powers under Rule 29 of The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 I order that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is added to the proceedings as a Second Respondent.[2]The Second Respondent did not employ the Claimant. It is a party to the claim in its capacity as statutory guarantor. For the avoidance of doubt, this Judgment does not purport to place any additional liability on the Second Respondent. Case Number: 3315450/2020 2[3]I ordered, that the hearing be converted from a preliminary hearing to a finalhearing.
[4]The Claimant’s claims of direct discrimination on the grounds of age, race, and sex contrary to s.13 of the Equality Act 2010 are well-founded and succeed. The First Respondent is ordered to pay the net sum of £14,604.68 by way of remedy for that discrimination for injury to feelings and net consequential losses, to include interest at the statutory rate of 8%.[5]The Claimant’s claims of direct discrimination on the grounds of religious or philosophical belief contrary to s.13 of the Equality Act 2010 are not well founded and fail.[6]The Claimant’s claims of harassment contrary to s.26 of the Equality Act 2010 on the ground of his race, age and sex are well-founded and succeed. The First Respondent is ordered to pay the net sum of £3690.36 by way of remedy for that harassment for injury to feelings, to include interest at the statutory rate of 8%.[7]The Claimants claims of harassment contrary to s.26 of the Equality Act 2010 on the grounds of religious or philosophical are not well-founded and fail.[8]I declare that the Claimant’s complaint that the First Respondent made unauthorised deductions from his wages contrary to s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by way of failure to pay accrued holiday pay are wellfounded and succeed.[9]The Respondent owed the Claimant ten days holiday pay at termination, and this amounted to £840.00 at a rate of £84.00 a day. The Respondent made a payment of £424.79 on termination for holiday pay leaving the sum due of £415.21 and I order the First Respondent to pay the gross sum of £415.21 subject to any deductions necessary for national insurance and tax.[10]The Respondent was liable to pay one weeks’ statutory notice at termination and this amounted to £420.00 and I order the First Respondent to pay the gross sum of £420.00 subject to any deductions necessary for national insurance and tax.[11]The Claimants remaining claim for unpaid wages was not well-founded and fails.[12]The Claimant’s claim that the First Respondent failed to provide a written statement of particulars of employment contrary to s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded and succeed and I order the First Respondent to pay the four weeks gross pay in the sum of £1680.00. Case Number: 3315450/2020 3