L Coverdale v Salad Corporation Ltd: 6013374/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6013374/2024
Laura CoverdaleClaimantSalad Corporation Ltd RECORD OF A HEARINGRespondent
Employment Judge BoyesIn person for claimantNot represented for respondentDate 24 February 2026

JUDGMENT

The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 – Rule 22[1]The Claimant’s complaint that she is owed arrears of pay is well founded.[2]The Respondent made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s wages for the period 22/6/2024 to 3/7/2024.[3]The Respondent failed to pay the Claimant pay in lieu of notice in breach of contract for the period 4/7/2024 to 10/7/2024.[4]The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £1634.69 forthwith* (that being gross wages of £1565.83 owed for the period 22/6/2024 to 10/7/2024 and tips owed of £68.86 (gross) payable for the 17 hours that the Claimant worked during the period 22/6/2024 to 3/7/2024). *This sum is subject to any income tax and national insurance deductions that the Respondent is required to make.[5]The Claimant’s complaint of failure to pay accrued holiday pay is not well founded and is dismissed. The Claimant’s holiday entitlement for the period 1/4/2024 to 3/7/2024 was 60.6 hours. The Claimant had taken holiday of 62.5 hours as at the date of termination. No holiday entitlement accrues subsequent to the date of termination. Reasons for Rule 22 Judgment[1]The claim was filed on the 30/09/2024. The claim was served on the Respondent on the 7/10/2024 and the deadline for the Respondent to file a response was the Case number: 6013374/2024 4/11/2024. No response was filed. The claim form was re-served upon the Respondent at a different address on the 7/3/2025 and the deadline for the Respondent to file a response was the 4/4/2025. The Respondent filed a response on the 7/4/2025. No application for an extension of time to file a response has been made and no explanation provided as to why the response was filed late. The Respondent’s response was therefore out of time.[2]The case was listed for a Rule 22 hearing. The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was properly notified of the hearing. Having heard from the Claimant, I was satisfied that a determination could properly be made of the claim in accordance with rule 22 of the Procedure Rules. Approved by: