Mr D D Santi v A M Jack and A Kearney: 6014280/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The first respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 10 March 2025 to 4 April 2025.[2]The first respondent shall pay the claimant £620, which is the gross sum deducted. The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance. Notice Pay[3]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is well-founded.[4]The first respondent shall pay the claimant £480 as damages for breach of contract. This figure has been calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant will have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. Dismissal of all other claims[5]All other claims against the first respondent and all claims against the second respondent are dismissed.REASONS
[1]Mr Santi has brought claims for non payment of one month's wages which is pursued as an unlawful deduction from wages claim in the amount of £620 gross.[2]He also brings a claim for breach of contract in respect of one month’s notice pay in the amount of £480.[3]The hearing commenced at 10:28am. The respondents did not attend. They had been sent the ET1 and not provided a response and they had also been sent the notice of hearing via post and they have not engaged with the Tribunal at any point during the claim. I decided it was in the interests of the overriding objective to proceed in their absence.[4]Mr Santi started employment with the first respondent on 10 March 2025 and his employment ended on 4 April 2025.[5]Mr Santi's evidence was that during the final week of his employment he had pursued the first respondent for his wages from the Monday to the Friday. On the Friday the first respondent had said the claimant would be paid but this payment did not materialise. Mr Santi's evidence was that he said he would go round to the first respondent for payment and the final message from the first respondent was that if the claimant did so he would call the police. I accept this evidence and it was unchallenged.[6]Mr Santi took that text message as termination of the employment relationship. I find that Mr Sant’s employment was terminated without notice on 4 April 2025.[7]I accept Mr Santi's evidence that he was not paid anything at all from the first respondent: that he was not paid for the hours worked nor for the one month notice.[8]Mr Santi's evidence was that it was agreed he would be paid £20 per hour. The contract sets out that he would work six hours per week and therefore a one month notice period is 24 hours. 24 hours at £20 is £480. Therefore, I give judgement in the amount of £480 in respect of the breach of contract claim for a failure to pay notice pay.[9]I also upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim. I accept Mr Santi's evidence that he worked in excess of six hours per week for that month because he was settling into the new role. His evidence was that he worked 31 hours per week over the one month. This worked out at an average of seven and three quarter hours per week. I accept Mr Santi’s evidenced in this regard and therefore I give judgement in the amount of £620 in respect of the unlawful deduction from wages act claim.[10]Mr Santi confirmed that he was not pursuing any other claims as part of this case and in particular he is not pursuing any form of unfair dismissal claim.[11]There was an issue about who is the correct respondent in this claim. The ET1 form set out two different respondents the first is Mr Aaron Michael Jack and the address given is 82 Firsby close Hemlington Middlesbrough. The ET1 was sent to that person and that address on 8 May 2025 and no response whatsoever has been received from that respondent. The claimant also obtained an ACAS early conciliation certificate naming that respondent.[12]A second respondent was also named and the ET1 was sent to that name and address but no response was received from them either.[13]The Employment Tribunal has carried out a number of Companies House searches on a number of names to establish if there is a company registered and these have come back in the negative. I note that the claimant’s documents include an employment contract between an entity which is called Kearney CK Group Limited. The claimant's evidence is that that is a fake company and that the first respondent has in the past and continues to operate fake companies. A Companies House search does not recognise that name as a company. Given the claimant’s evidence, which is unchallenged, I accept that the first respondent attempts to use what appeared to be company names to pursue his activities. I am satisfied that the first respondent is in fact the actual employer and is the person who is responsible for the amounts awarded in this judgement.[14]I have decided that the second respondent is not a correct respondent and therefore I make no orders against that respondent. Approved by: