Employment Tribunals

Case Number:1800800/2021 A 1 of 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr B Tonchev Respondent: Panoramic Doors (UK) Ltd Heard on 22 April 2021 This has been a remote hearing, by telephone (A): A hearing in person was not practicable because of the present restrictions due to Covid 19. Before: Employment Judge D N Jones Appearances For the claimant: Mr T Parsons-Munn, counsel For the respondent: Not in attendance JUDGMENT The response having been accepted after an extension of time was granted and it being accepted that furlough payments were not made, under rule 21 judgment in respect of part of the claim is made as follows: The respondent made unauthorised deductions from the wages of the claimant in respect of furlough payments and shall pay to him the sum of £9,988.08. Employment Judge D N Jones Corrected under rule 69 on 13 July 2021 Case No:1800800/2021 1 / EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Respondent: Mr B Tonchev Panoramic Doors (UK) Ltd Heard at: Leeds (by video link) On: 23 July 2021 This has been a remote hearing by video link (CVP): A hearing in person was not practicable due to the Covid19 Pandemic restrictions Before: Employment Judge R S Drake Representation: Claimant: Mr P Morgan (of Counsel) Respondent: No Attendance JUDGMENT 1. The Claimant has established that he was entitled to £2,835.00 unpaid wages and a further £1,670.64 unpaid overtime pay. Therefore, he is awarded, and the Respondents shall pay to him the total sum of £4,505.64 in addition to the sum awarded to him in the Judgment dated 22 April 2021 together with interest accruing from the date of both judgments on both sums at a rate of 8%. REASONS 2. The Claimant gave evidence of his pay and shortfalls thereof during employment and of working but not being paid for 109 hours overtime. The Respondent contested this aspect of his claim, the balance being the subject of a separate Judgment dated 22 April 2021, by saying that the overtime they accepted was worked by the Claimant was not authorised and was excessive. They produced no evidence and further they failed to Case No:1800800/2021 2 / attend today and to comply with Case Management Directions issued by EJ Jones on 22 April 2021. Nonetheless, having heard and accepted the Claimant’s counsel’s application to strike out the Respondents response, I took on board the Claimants evidence in full and found that his version of events was preferred. 3. I struck out the Respondent’s response in that it was apparent to me that for the purposes of Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the ET(Const and Rules of Procedure) Regs 2013, the Respondents had failed to comply with case management orders promulgated by EJ Jones 22 April 2021 and that by not appearing today either with or without representation, it was apparent that they were not actively pursuing the response. 4. Nonetheless I ensured that the Claimant gave evidence to the effect that he had never at any time in his employment with the Respondents been required to seek authorization for overtime worked, there was no provision in his contract of employment to this effect, and he was always generally and specifically told to work as long as it took to finish any particular door fitting or repair job at any customers location. I therefore concluded on the evidence that he had worked the hours he said he had worked, and that he was not contractually obliged in anyway whatsoever to seek authorization to work overtime beyond normal working hours. 4. There was produced to me by the Claimant, and I accepted a detailed schedule of his loss which took into account certain payments part payment or wages and overtime, but which disclosed considerable shortfalls in respect of pay for normal hours worked i.e. £382.50 and also pay for 109 hours worked during furlough and thus for £2,452.50. The schedule also disclosed a shortfall of pay for overtime in the summer of£1,670.64. I accepted the Claimant’s evidence, unchallenged as it was, in full. 5 I was asked to award interest on this and the previous judgement to accruing from the date the non-payment started to accrue. However, I have concluded that interest on unpaid tribunal awards accrues from the day after the decision and cannot be awarded for accrual before judgement as a remedy in its own right since this is only possible in complaints of unlawful discrimination and equal pay cases. 6. However, I note that the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards) Order 1990 and Section 17 of the Judgments Act 1834 enable me to award interest from the date of judgement at the rate fixed from time to time under the latter act which is at present 8%. 6. Thus, the Claimant is entitled to be paid by the Respondent the following: - Item £ £ Unpaid wages 2,835.00 Unpaid overtime pay 1,670.68 Total 4,505.64 Case No:1800800/2021 3 / I award Judgment and order that the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant the sum of £4,505.64 with interest accruing at 8% hereafter Employment Judge R S Drake Date 23 July 2021