Mr S McNeil v Glotech Marine Equatorial Guinea: 4109665/2021
REASONS
[1]Mr McNeil submitted his claim form (ET1) for the unauthorised deduction of wages on 12 May 2021. The claim form was accepted by the Tribunal on 15 July 2021 and first served on the Respondent (Glotech Marine Equatorial Guinea) on that date. The Respondent did not respond. By order of the Tribunal the claim form was re-served on the respondent (Glotech Marine Equatorial Guinea, c/o Glotech Marine Ltd and Torre GEPETROL) on 4 January 2022 at the direction of Judge Tynan because Judge Tynan could not be satisfied that the respondent has been properly served. Accordingly he directed re-service at the Company’s address in Equatorial Guinea and also c/o Glotech Marine Ltd. Judge Tynan allowed 42 days for the Response as the Respondent is outside the UK.[2]The respondent failed to present a valid response. Accordingly, the Tribunal listed a hearing under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. Mr McNeil submitted a 52-page bundle to the Tribunal, containing evidence from his employment contract dated 1 July 2020, details of the unlawful deductions (detailing his wages for the months he was not paid based on the number of days he worked in each respective month) and copies of email correspondence with the respondent’s managing director and finance director. Mr McNeil gave sworn evidence at the hearing.[3]Mr McNeil was employed from 1 July 2020 as a Country Manager for the respondent business, a start-up company with the aim of establishing an oil and gas entity in Equatorial Guinea. Mr McNeil was responsible for establishing the entity in this country, mobilising a team and winning work. Mr McNeil’s employment contract is ‘governed under the applicable laws of England and Wales’.[4]Mr McNeill worked for the respondent 6 days a week and was paid a daily rate of £900 gross. His claim form referred to timesheets recording the work he had undertaken. In sworn oral evidence Mr McNeil explained that he would complete monthly timesheets which were signed off by the director of projects. Copies of these were held on his Glotech laptop; while this computer is still in his possession, he is unable to access timesheet records, having ceased working for the respondent in December 2020. This is the reason he was unable to provide copies of the timesheets to the Tribunal. Mr McNeill told the Tribunal that he had identified the number of days he was not paid in each of the months July to December 2020 by reference to his calendar.[5]Mr McNeil provided written details to the Tribunal of these days and for each month calculations of the amount of gross pay he should have been paid as follows: July 12 days £10,800 August 27days £24,300 September 26 days £23,400 October 27 days £24,300 November 22 days £19,800 December 7 days £6,300 Total: 121 days £108,900[6]Mr McNeil was paid £10,952.88 in two amounts in August and October 2020. This payment was not assigned to any particular month. It is deducted from the accrued wages amount to leave an amount of £97,947.12 outstanding.[7]Mr McNeill also claimed for an additional 10 percent on the amount outstanding (£9,794.71). Mr McNeil told the Tribunal that this was an inperson agreement, which he recorded in an email to the respondent’s managing director dated 4 February 2021. While Mr McNeill provided a copy of the 4 February email, there is no written confirmation that the respondent agreed to pay the additional 10 percent. Therefore, I have not awarded Mr McNeil the additional 10 percent. Mr McNeil stopped working for the respondent in December 2020. He started a consultancy with a new employer in February 2021.[8]The Tribunal concludes from the evidence of Mr McNeill that he did work the days specified at paragraph 6 of these reasons and has only been paid £10,952.88 for the work he undertook between 1 July and 30 December 2020. Therefore, claimant is awarded the sum of £97,947.12 gross.