Mr P Bayliss v Rainfast Ltd: 3327800/2019
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s claims are not well founded and are dismissedREASONS
[1]This was intended to be the full merits hearing of the claim.[2]The Claimant failed to attend the hearing and had not made contract with the Tribunal before the hearing started.[3]This was the third time on which this case had been listed for a full merits hearing. In advance of the hearing I had read all the papers and caried out a detailed analysis of the financial documentation.[4]I took the view it was in the interests of justice to proceed win the absence of the Claimant.[5]I hears and accepted the evidence of Mr A Coyle, Director, and Mr T Blair, Office Manager. I accepted that evidence. It was clear from the payslips and documents that the Claimant had been paid more than he was entitled to, partly Case Number: 3327800/2019 because he had received subs that had not been recovered, and these overpayments exceeded any unauthorised deductions, for instance for training costs, that might have been made. He had also received at least 12 days holiday pay, slightly more than he was entitled to for his length of service.[6]The onus was on the Claimant to prove his case. He has failed to do so. The Respondent has established to my satisfaction that it does not owe the Claimant any money.