Mr G Fuller v Lancashire County Council: 2414517/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 December 2022 |
| Date | 02 December 2022 |
| Published date | 16 December 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
| Citation | 2414517/2021 |
RESERVED JUDGMENT Case No. 2414517/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr G Fuller
Respondent:
Lancashire County Council
Heard at:
Manchester (hybrid (1
st
day) and
in person (2
nd
day)
On: 22 and 23 September
2022
Before: Employment Judge McCarthy
(sitting alone)
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Mr MacMillan of Counsel
Respondent: Mr Wood of Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The judgment of the tribunal is that:
1. The claimant was not an employee of the respondent.
2. The respondent has not made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s
wages. The claim is dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
1. By a claim form presented on 16 November 2021 (having entered ea rly
conciliation and received a certificate against the respondent dated 6 November
RESERVED JUDGMENT Case No. 2414517/2021
2
2021), the claimant complained of a series of unauthorised deductions from his wages
for the period from 21July 2020 to 14 June 2021.
2. By a response form dated 17 December 2021 the respondent resisted the
complaint. It says that it had not made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s
wages, and the claimant was not an employee but a casual worker.
Preliminary Issues
3. On the first day of the hearing, the claimant’s counsel, Mr MacMillan, was
unable to attend the in person hearing as his diary had incorrectly recorded that the
hearing was being held via CVP. Mr MacMillan was based overseas so had been
unable to travel to the tribunal when he had discovered the error. He requested that
the hearing be postponed for one day, with all evidence being heard on the second
day or a hybrid hearing arranged for the first day. Arrangements were made for a
hybrid hearing but there were technical difficulties with the sound. Having established
that all evidence could be heard on the second day of the hearing, I agreed with the
parties that the remainder of the first day be used for reading, given the technical
difficulties and to allow Mr MacMillan sufficient time to travel to the UK for the second
day of the hearing.
4. As noted on the ET3 form, the respondent is a large employer in the North West
region of England and employs “40,000 plus” people. Before hearing evidence, I
disclosed to the parties that, perhaps unsurprisingly, I had a personal friend who
worked for the respondent. I disclosed that this friend worked for the respondent’s
Human Resources function (I explained I h ad no knowledge how large this function
was or what areas she covered) but there was n o indication in the agreed bundle,
pleadings and/or witn ess statements that my friend had any involvement in the case
before me- she was not one of the named HR representatives referred to in the
documents/witness statements. I confirmed that I had no other personal or profession
connection with the respondent and believed I could still be fair and impartial.
However, as there was one general reference to “HR” discussing whether to utilise the
claimant as a casual worker during the investigation, I felt it was appropriate to disclose
this connection with the parties. I asked the claimant and respondent whether they had
any objections to me continuing to hear the case and gave them time to reflect on my
disclosure with their respective Counsel. Counsels for both the claimant and the
respondent informed me that their respective client had no objections to me continuing
to hear the case and the hearing proceeded.
Claims and Issues
5. The issues to be determined by the t ribunal were discussed and agreed at the
outset of the hearing. A List of Issues had been discussed at a Preliminary Hearing
on 21 March 2022 with Employment Judge Humble and was annexed to the Record
of the Preliminary Hearing dated 1 April 2022. The parties’ representatives confirmed
on the first day that there were no proposed amendments to this list of issues and it
was agreed that this reflected all the issues to be determined by the tribunal. The list
of issues is annexed to this judgment. The respondent had asserted at this Preliminary
Hearing that the claimant’s claim was out of time and so the list of issues included
issues relating to time limits (issues13-20). On the second day of the hearing, the
respondent’s counsel, Mr Wood, informed me that the respondent would not now be
taking the time point. I explained that as jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a tribunal
To continue reading
Request your trial