Ms C Round and others v The Liquor Works Ltd: 3327647/2017 and others
JUDGMENT
[1]The first claimant’s claim in relation to unlawful deductions is upheld. The respondent is ordered to pay to the first claimant the following sums:1.1 In respect of unpaid arrears of wages: £1,043.001.2 In respect of one week’s notice pay: £232.001.3 In respect of 13.5 days’ holiday: £788.40[2]The above sums are all stated to be gross sums.[3]The claims of the second and third claimants fail and are dismissed.REASONS
[1]I give these brief reasons in the interests of justice.[2]The claimants were members of bar staff who started working for the respondent on or about 19 January 2017 and ceased work on or about 11 July 2017.[3]The response form stated that the named respondent is a dormant company which never employed staff, and asserted that the claimants were employed by Rockerfella Pub Group Ltd, a company about to enter into insolvency.[4]The respondent’s representative, and signatory of the response form, Mr Ronan McKenna wrote to state that he would be unable to attend the hearing.[5]The first question was the identity of the respondent. Ms Round showed me a contract of employment issued to her by the respondent named above. No documentation in the name of Rockerfella Pub Group Ltd had ever been issued to her. I find that she had a contract of employment with the above named respondent which was therefore her employer.[6]Ms Round gave evidence that she had recorded the hours worked each day on a spreadsheet which she showed me, calculated her claim for underpayment by the simple expedient of adding up the hours which she worked, multiplying by the hourly rate of £8.00, and deducting payments made to her. She showed me bank statements showing direct transfer payments from Rockerfella Pub Group Ltd. That left a net balance of £1,043.00.[7]That figure included two weeks for which the claimant was not paid at all, the contract of employment stating that she had entered into a bond, which was in fact an old fashioned “payment in hand” obligation.[8]Ms Round said that she had been dismissed with immediate effect on 11 July 2017. She had over four weeks’ employment and was therefore by statute entitled to one week’s notice, which I have awarded at the figure of £232.00.[9]Ms Round had miscalculated her holiday pay claim. She told me that she had taken no paid holiday during her employment. I calculate her holiday pay as follows:9.1 She worked 25 weeks out of 52 and was entitled to 28 days’ holiday in 52 weeks. She was therefore entitled to the following: 28 x 25/52 = 13.46.9.2 I calculate that she was due 13.5 days’ holiday. I accept that on average she worked 7.3 hours per day, and therefore the holiday pay calculation is as follows: 13.5 x 7.3 x 8 = 788.40.[10]All the above figures have been calculated gross and are so ordered. In the absence of payslips showing the basis of any deductions, I am unable to make calculation on any other basis.[11]Mr Ryall and Mr Hawkins did not attend. Ms Round stated that she did not represent them at this hearing. The only material from each of them before me was a spreadsheet, and I had no other documentation or supporting material from either of them. The spreadsheet on behalf of Mr Hawkins reached a different figure from that on the claim form, and Mr Hawkins’ claim for holiday pay appeared on its face to be unsustainable. I found that neither Mr Ryall nor Mr Hawkins had made out their claims which were therefore dismissed.[1]This matter was listed before me to reconsider the judgment of Employment Judge R Lewis dated 27 March 2018. The application was made by Mr J Ryall. The issue for me is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the decision. The claims of Mr Ryall were dismissed by Employment Judge Lewis as he did not attend the hearing on 27 March 2018. I explained to Mr Ryall he would need to provide me with a good reason for his absence along with any supporting evidence. His application for reconsideration made by email of 4 May 2018 states that he was under the impression that Miss Round be able to represent all three claimants at the hearing. The judgment of Employment Judge R Lewis records that Miss Round specifically told the judge that she did not represent Mr Ryall or the other claimant at the hearing. Case Number: 3327647/2017 to 3327649/2017[2]Mr Ryall confirmed that he was aware of the hearing date. I asked him if he had any evidence that Miss Round had agreed to represent him at the hearing and he was unable to provide this to me. He referred me to a WhatsApp message which Miss Round sent to him and the other claimant in which she suggested that at least one of them attend the hearing date. They did not do so. Mr Ryall says that he did not do so because he is an actor and was engaged in rehearsals for a play and it would have been detrimental to the play if he was away for the day.[3]There were underlying public policy reasons why judicial proceedings should have finality. The general rule that tribunal decisions should not be re-opened and re-litigated. I am satisfied that Mr Ryall was aware of the hearing date but had chosen not to attend. I was not satisfied that there was any evidence that Miss Round had agreed to represent him and indeed Mr Ryall made me aware that Miss Round had specifically stated that either he or the other claimant should also attend the hearing.[4]I do not consider that it is in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment of Employment R Lewis.