Mr J Sweeney v Colin’s MOT & Service Centre Ltd: 4103425/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)

Case No 4103425/2023

Venue Aberdeen

Hearing 1 November 2023

Between

Mr Jack SweeneyClaimant

Colin’s MOT & Service Centre LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge N M Hosie

Date 2 November 2023

JUDGMENT

[1]the claim under s.23 of Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded and the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of Eight Hundred and Seventy Pounds (£870), under deduction of the appropriate amounts for Income Tax and National Insurance, as unlawful deductions from wages; and E.T. Z4 (WR)

[2]the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum One Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Six Pounds (£1,286), in respect of the respondent’s failure to provide the claimant with a written statement of particulars of employment.

REASONS

[1]The claimant, Jack Sweeney, brought a claim for unpaid wages. The claim was undefended. There were various attempts by the Tribunal to intimate the claim to the respondent which trades as “Colin’s Tyres". Two of these Tribunal Notices were returned marked, in handwriting, as “not at this address”, although the addresses to which the Notices were sent were those where “Colin’s Tyres” carries on business. Nor was there any official note from the Royal Mail that the correspondence had not been delivered. This suggested to me a somewhat cavalier and obstructive approach by the respondent to these proceedings.

[2]Eventually, the claim was intimated to Colin’s MOT & Service Centre Ltd. A Companies House search revealed that the Company was active and the Registered Office address was provided.

[3]A Notice of Claim was re-sent by the Tribunal to the respondent Company at that address on 20 September 2023. It was not returned. The respondent Company had not submitted an ET3 Response Form.

[4]I was satisfied, on the basis of the claim form and the supporting documentation, that I could issue a Judgment, without the need for a Hearing,

[5]I have no reason to doubt the claimant’s allegations which are consistent and convincing.

[6]The claimant was employed by the respondent Company as a Mobile Mechanic from 8 May 2023 to 6 June 2023.

[7]On 6 June, he sent a text message to Richard Evans at the respondent Company to intimate his resignation. He advised him that the job, “wasn’t working out”.

[8]Mr Sweeney then asked Mr Evans if his wages for the week would be “processed for Friday”. Mr Evans replied, “nope”. No reason was given for this and no payment was made. Unpaid wages

[9]I am satisfied that Mr Sweeney should have received a payment of wages of £870 and that there has been an unlawful deduction from his wages of that sum. Accordingly, the sum of £870 requires to be paid to him by the respondent Company, under deduction of the appropriate amounts for Income Tax and National Insurance. Written particulars of employment

[10]Mr Sweeney was not provided with a written statement of particulars of employment by the respondent, as she should have been, in terms of s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

[11]Tribunals must award compensation to an employee where, upon a successful claim being made under any of the Tribunal jurisdictions listed in Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002, it becomes evident that the employer was in breach of its duty to provide full and accurate written particulars. A claim for unlawful deduction from wages is listed in Schedule 5. Amount of award

[12]A Tribunal must award a “minimum amount” of two weeks’ pay in respect of such a failure, in addition to any other award. A week’s pay is capped at £643. Mr Sweeney earned more than that each week. Accordingly, he is entitled to a payment of £1,286 (2 x £643), in this regard. io