Outcome
Individual claims
The Claimant was employed for just under four weeks and did not have the two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Ordinary unfair dismissal claims require qualifying service of two years, which the Claimant did not possess.
The tribunal found that the Second Respondent did not pay the Claimant for some of the work performed by him during his employment in June and July 2024, constituting unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Second Respondent deducted 5% of the Claimant's gross wages for pension contributions but failed to pay those deducted sums to the pension scheme. These were unauthorised deductions under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Claimant was dismissed without notice or pay in lieu of notice. He was entitled to one week's notice based on his employment contract. The Second Respondent breached this contractual obligation.
Facts
The Claimant worked for All 4 One Catering Ltd for just under four weeks from 21 June to 17 July 2024, earning £8.70 per hour for 21 hours per week. The Second Respondent failed to pay the Claimant for some of his work, deducted pension contributions but did not pay them to the pension scheme, and dismissed him without notice. The Claimant raised a grievance which was completely ignored. The Second Respondent failed to present a response to the claim.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim due to insufficient qualifying service but found in favour of the Claimant on unlawful deduction of wages (including pension contributions) and wrongful dismissal. The tribunal applied a 25% ACAS uplift due to the Second Respondent's complete failure to follow the grievance procedure, awarding total damages of £1,083.06.
Practical note
Default judgments under Rule 22 allow tribunals to determine claims on available material, and complete failure to engage with grievance procedures can result in maximum 25% ACAS uplift even in small wage claims.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
The Claimant raised a grievance with the Second Respondent regarding unpaid wages, and the Second Respondent did not act on that grievance at all. The tribunal found complete failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2305974/2024
- Decision date
- 3 April 2025
- Hearing type
- default judgment
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Name
- Mr R D Cafagna
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Service
- 1 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep