Employment Tribunals

Case Number: 1802244/2020 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Mr C Tobin v Panoramic Group Limited PUBLIC HEARING Heard: BY CVP On: 3 September 2020 Before: Employment Judge JM Wade Representation: Claimant: In person Respondent: No attendance This has been a remote hearing by CVP. A face to face hearing was not held because of the present Covid 19 circumstances. Mr Tobin attended the Tribunal today and was provided with facilities from which to connect remotely to the hearing. The respondent did not attend by video link but had sent the Tribunal a file of relevant documents. The Tribunal’s clerk rang the respondent and also sent an email alerting its finance director Ms Rees to the hearing. There was no response. I decided to proceed with the hearing pursuant to Rule 47 in the respondent’s absence and give judgment on the merits. This was exceptionally in the interests of justice as the relevant facts were not in dispute and the issues were limited to applying established principles of law to undisputed facts. The respondent’s response was misconceived as a defence to an unlawful deduction from wages complaint; and the claimant’s claim for damages in respect of another role which he turned down to join the respondent was also misconceived. JUDGMENT 1 By consent the title of the respondent is amended as it appears above (the addition of “Ltd”). 2 The claimant’s complaints of unlawful deduction from wages/a failure to pay holiday pay on the termination of employment succeed and the respondent shall pay to the claimant the following gross sums: £96.15 (one day’s holiday pay); £480.77 five day’s pay unlawfully deducted; £19.24 gross pay unlawfully deducted in the use of a net sum in the calculation of notice pay; Total £596.16 3 The claimant’s claim for damages for breach of contract comprising lost earnings from a post he turned down to accept the post with the respondent, is dismissed. Case Number: 1802244/2020 2 Notes to the parties: In response to a question from the claimant I explained that the Tribunal’s rules include provision for preparation time orders where a claim or defence has been misconceived and/or a party has acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings. Such applications may be made in writing and are proportionately often addressed without a hearing. Employment Judge JM Wade 3 September 2020 Case Number 1802244/2020 (P) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Mr C Tobin v Panoramic Group Limited This has been a hearing on the papers directed by me but to which no party objected or sought a hearing. Upon the claimant’s application for a preparation time order presented on 14 September 2020 and in the absence of a response: JUDGMENT The respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £120 in respect of the time he has spent pursuing his unlawful deductions from wages complaint, the defence to which was always misconceived. REASONS 1. On 3 September 2020 I determined the claimant’s claim at a video hearing which the respondent did not attend. Its finance director had sent in a helpful set of documentation to identify the payments which had been made and the aspects in dispute. The essential dispute was over the claimant’s pay for his last working week, in respect of which the respondent made an unlawful deduction alleging, in effect, that he did not do any work and was absent. I conclude from the respondent’s failure to attend the video hearing to explain its position that it always knew it would lose this aspect of the case, and that the deduction was, in effect, a “try on”, by an employer which recognised it had made a mistake and was aggrieved at having to pay the claimant anything at all. 2. On 14 September 2020 the claimant presented an application for six hours’ preparation time, including two hours attending the hearing. Costs of attending a hearing are not permitted (Rule 75 (2)). It is also the case that the claimant expanded his case to seek damages for earnings from the loss of another opportunity, missed by reason of this employment, which I also dismissed as misconceived. 3. It therefore seems proportionate to me to assess that a reasonable amount of time for a litigant in person to spend submitting and preparing for the hearing of his claim, but reduce that by an hour for the work on the speculative and unsuccessful part. The proportionate assessment is three hours. The respondent shall additionally pay to him £120. Employment Judge JM Wade Date: 23 October 2020