Ms J North v Back to Back Care Ltd: 3324201/2019
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s weekly pay was £502 (gross).[2]The respondent made an unauthorised deduction of £310 from July 2019 salary by paying for 190 hours rather than 221. The Respondent is ordered to pay the gross sum of £310 to the Claimant.[3]The respondent made an unauthorised deduction of £174.06 from July 2019 salary by purporting to deduct a sum for late submission of time sheet. The Respondent is ordered to pay the gross sum of £174.06 to the Claimant.[4]The Claimant is entitled to a payment in lieu of unused holiday entitlement of £862.21 (being £502 x 5.6 x 112/365). [NOTE: Orally, I announced £854.89, based on 111 days employment. However, it was actually 112 days and so £862.61 is correct.] The Respondent is ordered to pay the gross sum of £862.21 to the Claimant.[5]The claim for losses allegedly caused by late notification of earnings to HMRC and/or DWP fails. The claim for unauthorised deduction for employee pension contributions fails.[6]In addition, I award £1004 (being 2 weeks’ pay) in accordance with section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 and the Respondent is ordered to pay that sum to the Claimant. Case No: 3324201/2019REASONS
[1]I have seen emails with attachments from the Claimant dated 3 June, 20 June, and 22 June. The Claimant also refers to having sent documents to tribunal which were – she says – received on 19 May 2022, and scanned and sent back to her. Tribunal staff have not been able to confirm that to me, but I accept it to be true. I work on the assumption that the attachments to the 4 July 2022 email are the scanned copies which the Claimant has mentioned.[2]The judgment was sent to the parties on 30 March 2022. This is confirmed by the tribunal file, and is correctly stated in the Claimant’s chronology submitted in support of her application.[3]Rule 77 specifies that an application for a preparation time order may be made up to 28 days after the judgment is sent. So that would be up to 27 April 2022 in this case. In the Claimant’s chronology, she refers to having submitted the preparation time order on 30 April 2022. Even if that date is correct, the application would have been out of time, regardless of whether 30 April is the date she put the documents in the post, or whether she is suggesting they were actually delivered that day.[4]On the tribunal file, the earliest document about the application is the 3 June email. However, as mentioned, I accept that – as stated in that email – the Claimant has some accurate record that the tribunal actually received the documents on 19 May 2022.[5]The application is out of time, and I do not consider it to be in the interests of justice to extend time. The Claimant was aware from the oral decision on 18 March what the decision and reasons were. She was also aware from that date of the Respondent’s non-attendance on that occasion, having previously been aware of the history of the Respondent’s engagement (or alleged lack Case No: 3324201/2019 6.8 Judgment on Withdrawal rule 52 of engagement) with the matter. The Claimant had sufficient opportunity to submit the application within the deadline.