Mr M Ronald v BD2011 Ltd and Others: 4110220/2021
JUDGMENT
The responses of the 1st and 2nd respondent are struck out under rule 37 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the grounds:• of non-compliance with an Order of the Tribunal made by anREASONS
[1]On 10 November 2021 the Tribunal issued an Order to all parties following a preliminary hearing was held on the same date. The 1 st and 2nd respondents did not comply with this Order.[2]On 07 February 2022 the Tribunal gave the 1 st and 2nd respondents an opportunity to give written reasons by 17 February or to request a hearing in order to consider why the responses should not be struck out.[3]The 1st and 2nd respondents have failed to give an acceptable reason why such a judgment should not be made or to request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore strikes out the responses. Employment Judge: R Gall Date of Judgment: 25 February 2022 Entered in register: 25 February 2022 and copied to parties EMPLOYMENT 5 TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No 4110220/2021 (V) (As per attached Schedule)[10]Held via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 1 March 2022 Employment Judge Murphy (Sitting alone)[15]Mr M Ronald First Claimant & other claimants Per attached Schedule Represented by Ms A Bowman,[20]Solicitor BD2011 Ltd First Respondent Not present and Not represented 25 Blue Dog Second Respondent Not present and Not represented 30 Bishopgate Consultants Ltd Third Respondent Not present and Not represented 35[1]The claimants were at all material times the employees of the First Respondent. The claims against the Second and Third Respondents are 40 dismissed.[2]The First Respondent has made unauthorised deductions from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from all claimants listed in the Schedule between November 2020 and 25 June 2021 or the earlier termination of the employment where applicable. The First[5]Respondent is ordered to pay sums to the respective claimants as follows:(i) Matthew Ronald, the sum of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN POUNDS STERLING AND EIGHTY PENCE (£1,111.80);(ii) John Russell, the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE[10]POUNDS STERLING AND TWENTY FOUR PENCE (£865.24); (iii) Alastair Beattie, the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED AND EIGHT POUNDS STERLING AND FORTY PENCE (£808.40); (iv) Eilidh McIntosh, the sum of ONE THOUSAND AND FIFTY-NINE POUNDS STERLING AND EIGHTY PENCE (£1,111.80);[15](v) Charles Asson, the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO POUNDS STERLING (£882.00); (vi) Ross, Campbell, the sum of ONE THOUSAND AND FIFTY-THREE POUNDS STERLING AND SEVENTY PENCE (£1,053.70); (vii) Kyle Stewart, the sum of FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY POUNDS[20]STERLING AND FIFTY SIX PENCE (£590.56); (viii) Mairi McDowall, the sum of FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY POUNDS STERLING (£540); (ix) Gaia Detorri, the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED AND EIGHT POUNDS STERLING (£708);[25](x) Kerryn Stock, the sum of FOUR HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-SIX POUNDS STERLING (£476); and (xi) John Morrison, the sum of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY POUNDS STERLING AND TWENTY PENCE (£1,190.20). 3. The sums awarded in item 2 are expressed gross of tax and national insurance. It is for the respondent to make any deductions lawfully required to account to HMRC for tax and employees’ national insurance due on the sum, if applicable. 5 Background[1]The claimants brought claims for unauthorised deductions from wages against the First and Second Respondent. The First Respondent alleged that the employment of the claimants transferred to Bishopgate Consultants Ltd pursuant to a services agreement between the First Respondent and that 10 company, alleged to have been entered on 6 January 2021. Bishopgate Consultants Ltd was added to the proceedings as the Third Respondent. It failed to present a response within the time limit for doing so. The responses of the First and Second Respondents were struck out by a judgment dated 25 February 2022. Rules 21(2) and (3) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 15 2013, therefore, apply to all three respondents.[2]A Notice of Hearing was served on the three respondents. They did not attend and nor were they represented at the hearing. The hearing took place by video conferencing.[3]Oral reasons were given at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided 20 unless they are asked for by a party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. 25