Mr A Warbrick v Rouse Landscape & Civils Ltd: 6004514/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the respect of his final month of employment in April 2024[2]The respondent shall pay the claimant £2248.41, which is the gross sum deducted. The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance.REASONS
[1]As the respondent did not attend this hearing, I have set out brief reasons to explain my judgment.[2]Notice of this hearing was sent to the parties at the time the claim was sent to the respondent. The claimant informed me he had not received it and was unaware of the directions given for today. He became aware of the hearing when he received a cvp link for the hearing which was sent to both parties. The fact the respondent filed a response shows me that the respondent at least had had notice of today’s case.[3]The respondent did not attend today. My clerk tried to call using the number on the response form. There was no reply. The claimant also had a contact number for a director of the company, Mr Rouse. My clerk tried that but there was no reply. My clerk also sent an email to seek to contact the respondent. The start of the hearing was delayed for 35 minutes in the hope that someone from the respondent would attend but no one did. In the circumstances I concluded that it was in accordance with the overriding objective for the hearing to proceed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure given the lack of any reason being given by the respondent for non-attendance at a hearing it had been made aware of and the reasonable attempts of HMCTS to secure attendance in a timely way.[4]I treated the response form as written representations. The claim is resisted on the basis there was no contractual relationship whatsoever between the respondent and the claimant and he was no employed by them.[5]The claimant sent me evidence in the form of a wage slip attached to an email from the company which shows the name of the company and a P45 also in the name of the company. The claimant gave me sworn evidence that he had been employed by the respondent for a number of years. After leaving employment he had received the final payslip and P45 from the company’s bookkeeper but no payment. He contacted the bookkeeper who told him she would pass on his messages to Mr Rouse and he made various attempts to contact Mr Rouse directly but has heard nothing further. He has never been paid his final pay in accordance with that payslip.[6]The claim was submitted within the statutory time period. Although the respondent disputed there had been ACAS early conciliation, I am satisfied that the claimant had complied with the statutory requirements and there is a valid certificate. Accordingly the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider this claim.[7]I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant has demonstrated that he was an employee of the respondent and that he was properly due the wages claimed.