Dr A Verma v Edward Thomas Payroll Ltd and Locum People Ltd: 8000171/2024 and 8000172/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]the claim under s.23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded and the first respondent, Edward Thomas Payroll Ltd, shall pay to the claimant E.T. Z4 (WR) the sum of Eight. Thousand arid Ninety-Three Pounds and Ninety-Five Pence (£8,093.95), as unlawful deductions from wages; and[2]the claim, in so far as directed against the second respondent, Locum People Ltd, is dismissed.REASONS
[1]Dr Anil Verma claimed that he was due unpaid wages and expenses. He brought the same claim, but by way of two separate claims forms: Case No. 8000171/2024 against the first respondent, Edward Thomas Payroll Ltd (“ET”); and Case No. 8000172/2024 against the second respondent, Locum People Ltd (“Locum”).[2]The claim against ET proceeded on an undefended basis as ET had not submitted an ET3 Response Form. The claim was denied in its entirety by Locum.[3]The two cases were combined. The combining Order which was issued by Judge Wiseman on 2 May 2024 is referred to for its terms. Final Hearing[4]Dr Verma represented himself at the Final Hearing. There was no appearance by or on behalf of ET. Locum was represented by a solicitor, Mr Chaudhuri.The Evidence
[5]I first heard evidence from Dr Verma. I then heard evidence on behalf of Locum from Keiron Goody, its Operation Director. Both witnesses gave their evidence in a measured, consistent and convincing manner and presented as credible and reliable.[6]A Joint Bundle of documentary productions was also submitted for the Hearing (“P”).The Facts
[7]Having heard the evidence and considered the documentary productions, I was able to make the following findings in fact. By and large, these were either agreed or not disputed.[8]Dr Verma was a Locum Consultant in emergency medicine. His claim relates to a period of work which he carried out at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.[9]The contractual “chain” was a complicated one. Locum is a recruitment Agency which supplies Doctors to the private sector.[10]Dr Verma was recruited by Locum for assignment to ARI. Locum provided Dr Verma with a “Confirmation of Assignment” (P.78-79).[11]Dr Verma had the option of being paid by PAYE. However, he opted to be paid by way of a so-called “umbrella Company”, which in this case was ET. Contract of Employment with ET[12]On 11 January 2023, Dr Verma entered into a contract of employment with ET (P.41-74). Payment structure[13]So far as Dr Verma’s pay was concerned, on receipt of a timesheet signed by Dr Verma and a person in authority at ARI, Locum would make payment of the sum due to ET, which in turn would make payment to Dr Verma’s Limited Company, Professional Medical Consultancy Ltd (“PMCL”) (P.159- 164). Dr Verma is the sole shareholder and Director of that Company. PayExcel Ltd[14]As a consequence of payment problems with ET, Dr Verma ceased to use ET as his umbrella Company and started to use PayExcel Ltd (“PayExcel”).[15]However, unlike ET, PayExcel charged a 1% service fee.[16]Dr Verma raised his concern about this extra expense with John Green, a Senior Consultant at Locum. There was included in the Joint Bundle a number of screen shots of WhatsApp messages between Dr Verma and Mr Green (P.91-104) and (P.122). These included an undated message from Mr Green which related to this additional service fee. It was in the following terms (P.100):- “So / will try and get Locum people to cover the outstanding expenses and any expenses until the end of the contract 31/12. But any contract after then I don’t think I’ll get it signed off." Wages for the week ending 12/11/23[17]Locum received a signed time sheet for this period (P.90) on 15 November 2023. Locum made payment to ET (P.124). However, ET failed to make payment to Dr Verma through the vehicle of his Limited Company, PMCL. 18. lam satisfied, on the evidence that the sum due to be paid by ET was £8,093.95. “Refund of fees paid to PayExcel”[19]In his claim form, Dr Verma intimated that he also sought payment of the sum of £321.11, by way of reimbursement of the 1% administration fee which was charged by PayExcel, for the 4 weeks ending 19/11/2023 to 10/12/2023 (P.11). “Payment for expenses for the weeks ending 22/10/23 to 10/12/23”[20]This relates to expenses which Dr Verma claims are due to be paid to him by ARI. The total sum claimed is £2,795.66 (P. 11).[21]However, before this claim could be processed, Locum required an “authorised expense form55, signed off by a qualified person at ARI. I am satisfied, on the evidence, that this has not been provided to Locum by ARI. Discussion and Decision[22]I deal with each of Dr Verma’s claims, in turn. Unpaid wages for the Week Ending 12 November 2023[23]Locum’s solicitor submitted that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction as Dr Verma supplied his services through the vehicle of a Limited Company namely, PMCL.[24]However, I was not persuaded that that was well-founded. Dr Verma had a contract of employment, in a personal capacity, with ET (P.41-54). It was in clear, unambiguous terms; there is no reference to his Limited Company in that contract.[25]His Limited Company was only utilised as a vehicle for payment of his wages.[26]Dr Verma was an employee of ET and it was ET which was liable to pay his wages.[27]Payment for the week in question was transmitted by Locum to ET on receipt of the signed timesheet. It is clear, in my view, therefore, that liability rests with ET for payment of the sum due.[28]I shall issue a Judgment, therefore that ET made an unlawful deduction from Dr Verma’s wages and that it should pay to him the sum of £8,093.95. “Refund of fees paid to PayExcel”[29]This claim is directed against Locum. It is predicated on an alleged agreement reached with John Green, Locum’s Senior Recruitment Consultant, that Locum would reimburse Dr Verma with the 1% administration fee which was being charged by PayExcel, being an additional charge as it was not levied by ET.[30]However, on the evidence all that Mr Green said was that he would “try and get Locum People to cover the outstanding expenses and any expenses until the end of the contract 31/12” (P.100).[31]That did not create a legally binding contract between the parties.[32]This claim is not well-founded, therefore, and it is dismissed. “Payment for expenses for the weeks ending 22/10/23 to 10/12/23[33]These were expenses which allegedly were due to be paid by ARI. However, before any liability can arise, Locum require a signed authorised expense form from ARI and this has not been provided. No legal obligation to make payment, therefore, has arisen. Accordingly, this claim is also dismissed.