Mr C Aldred v Practical Polymers Ltd: 2500063/2018
Employment Tribunal
Published on 11 April 2019, 14:12
- Summary
- Employment Tribunal decision.
- categories
-
breach-of-contract redundancy unfair-dismissal unlawful-deduction-from-wages working-time-regulations
- country
- england-and-wales
- decision date
- 2019-03-15
Official Documents
-
Mr C Aldred v Practical Polymers Ltd: 2500063/2018 - Strike Out
-
Mr C Aldred and Mr Trevor Hardie v Practical Polymers Ltd: 2500063/2018 and 2500064/18 - Rule 21
Decision Content
Read the decision in full .
Read the full decision in .
Change History
-
New Judgment
-
First published.
Full Decision Text
Raw text extracted from the official documents.
Case No:2500063/2018
6.2 Strike out Judgment – claim - rule 37
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr C Aldred
Respondent: Practical Polymers Limited
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out.
REASONS
1. By a letter dated 30 October 2018 the Tribunal gave the claimant an
opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the claim
should not be struck out because it has not been actively pursued.
2. The claimant has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to
make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a
hearing. The claim is therefore struck out.
_____________________________
Employment Judge Shepherd
27/11/18
Case Numbers 2500063/18 & 2500064/18
1
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants Respondent
Mr Christopher Aldred Practical Polymers Ltd
Mr Trevor Hardie
MADE AT NORTH SHIELDS ON 15th March 2018
EMPLOYMENT JUDGE GARNON
JUDGMENT (Liability Only)
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 –Rule 21
1. The claims of unlawful deduction of wages ,compensation for untaken annual leave,
breach of contract are well founded. I make no finding on the claim of unfair dismissal
or entitlement to a redundancy payment
2. A preliminary hearing by telephone will be listed at the first available date to deal with
the matters in paragraph 8 below
REASONS
1. The claims were presented against the respondent on 13th. and served on 15th
January 2018 . A response was due by 12th February 2018 . None has been received.
2. A Judge is required by rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
2013 to decide on the available material whether a determination can be made and , if it
can , obliged to issue a judgment which may determine liability only or and liability and
remedy.
3. I consider the above judgment appropriate because the claim form gives sufficient
information to enable me to find some claims proved on a balance of probability but not
to determine the sums claimed.
4. The law relating to unlawful deduction of wages is in Part 2 of the Employment Rights
Act 1996 ( the Act ).
5 The Working Time Regulations 1998 say in Regulation 14 that where a worker's
employment is terminated during the course of his leave year, and on the date on which
the termination takes effect the proportion he has taken of the leave to which he is
entitled in the leave year under regulation 13(1) differs from the proportion of the leave
Case Numbers 2500063/18 & 2500064/18
2
year which has expired, his employer shall make him a payment in lieu of untaken
leave in accordance with paragraph (3).
6 The law provides a contract of employment may be brought to an end only by
reasonable notice unless the claimant is guilty of gross misconduct, which they were
not . Damages for not giving that notice are the net pay due to the employee during the
notice period less any sums earned or received as benefits payable to unemployed
people in that period The statutory minimum period of notice set out in Section 86 of
the Act
7. Redundancy is defined in s 139 which says dismissal shall be taken to be by reason
of redundancy if it is wholly or mainly attributable to the fact the employer has ceased to
carry on the business for the purpose of which the employee was employed by him
either generally or in a particular place. If dismissal is for that reason the employee is
entitled to a statutory redundancy payment calculated by a formula in s162.
8. On 14th February Employment Judge Johnson sent a request for further information
to the claimants which they answered on 20th February but not completely. For example
the request was for gross and net pay but only net has been provided. The claim of
unfair dismissal may well succeed in theory but, as will be discussed in the telephone
hearing, is unlikely to produce any substantial award if redundancy payments are
awarded . The telephone hearing will give the claimants an opportunity to answer more
fully the questions posed by Employment Judge Johnson who was obviously trying to
save them the inconvenience of attending the Tribunal . That may still be possible if
they provide the necessary information by telephone. The Judge also will need the start
and end dates of the employment for Mr Hardie and his date of birth.
------------------------------------------------
TM Garnon Employment Judge
Date 15th March 2018
Related Parties
Search the database for other cases involving these individuals or companies.