Mr D Gallagher v Alpha Security Group Ltd: 2502199/2019
Employment Tribunal
Published on 31 October 2019, 14:42
- Summary
- Employment Tribunal decision.
- categories
-
breach-of-contract redundancy unfair-dismissal unlawful-deduction-from-wages working-time-regulations written-statements
- country
- england-and-wales
- decision date
- 2019-08-20
Official Documents
-
Mr D Gallagher v Alpha Security Group Ltd: 2502199/2019 - Judgment with Reasons
Change History
-
First published.
Full Decision Text
Raw text extracted from the official documents.
Case Number 2502199/19
1
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mr D Gallagher Alpha Security Group Ltd
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 –Rule 21
MADE AT NORTH SHIELDS ON 20 AUGUST 2019
EMPLOYMENT JUDGE GARNON
The Judgment of the Tribunal is:
1. The claim of unfair dismissal is well founded. I award compensation of
£14045.29 being a basic award of £9497.15 and a compensatory award of
£4548.14. The Recoupment Regulations do not apply.
2. The claim of unlawful deduction of wages is well founded. I order the respondent
to repay of £ 2166 gross of tax and National Insurance (NI).
3. The claim for compensation for untaken annual leave is well founded. I order the
respondent to pay compensation of £ 798 gross of tax and NI.
4. I increase the awards under s 38 of the Employment Act 2002 by four weeks pay
being £ 1999.40.
5. The total payable is £19008.69. The hearing listed for 23 October 2019 is
vacated.
REASONS ( bold print is my emphasis)
1. On 28 June 2019 the claim was presented . It was served on 3 July . A response
was due by 31 July 2019 but none was received. An Employment 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 so, obliged to issue
a judgment which may determine liability only or liability and remedy. I declined to
make a rule 21 judgment until I had from the claimant’s representative full details of
the losses claimed . These were provided on 19 August. I now have in the claim form
and that information sufficient to enable me to find the claims proved on a balance of
probability and determine remedy .
2. The law of unlawful deduction of wages is in Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act
1996 (“the Act”).The law of unfair dismissal is in Part X. The Working Time
Regulations 1998 say where a worker's employment is terminated during the course
Case Number 2502199/19
2
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 year which has expired. his
employer shall make him a payment in lieu of untaken leave . Section 38 of the
Employment Act 2002 empowers me to increase awards if the employer has not
when the proceeding commenced complied with s 1 of the Act
3. A limited liability company is an association of one or more human beings
registered at Companies House. It is a legal “person” in its own right. A Companies
House search on 6 August showed it as the address to which notice of the claim
was sent . Each company has a number, in this case 10327055.Today I performed
another search and found the respondent changed its name on 12 August to “ BM
Logistics Management Ltd “. It is still shown on a Companies House Search as
active and at the same address.
T M Garnon EMPLOYMENT JUDGE
JUDGMENT SIGNED BY EMPLOYMENT
JUDGE ON 20 AUGUST 2019
Related Parties
Search the database for other cases involving these individuals or companies.