Mrs L J Harkin v Master Peace Recruitment Ltd and others: 4102453/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 2022 |
| Date | 14 December 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 05 January 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Working Time Regulations |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4102453/20225
Hearing held at Glasgow by Cloud Video Platform on 30 November and
1 December 2022
Employment Judge A Kemp10
Mrs Laura-Jean Harkin Claimant
In person
15
Master Peace Recruitment Ltd First respondent
20 Represented by
Ms A Blake,
Operations Director
Infinity Payroll Solutions Ltd Second respondent
25 Represented by
Ms S Kingshot,
Director
30 Little Missenden Ltd Third respondent
No appearance or
representation
35 Greencolor Ltd Fourth respondent
No appearance or
representation
40 Zymanthorpe Ltd Fifth respondent
No appearance or
representation
45
4102453/2022
Page
2
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
1. The Tribunal declares that there were unauthorised deductions from
the wages of the claimant made by the first respondent and orders
the first respondent to pay her the sum of EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED AND THIRTY ONE POUNDS FORTY EIGHT PENCE5
(£8,831.48) subject to any necessary statutory deduction. On making
such deduction the amount shall be remitted by the first respondent
to Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise, and the first respondent shall
provide written notice of that payment and its amount to the claimant
when doing so.10
2. The claim as to unauthorised deductions from wages in relation to
pension contributions is dismissed as not being within the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
3. The claims as directed to the second, third, fourth and fifth
respondents are dismissed.15
4. A decision on whether or not to impose a penalty on the first
respondent is continued for 28 days to allow it to make
representations.
20
REASONS
Introduction
1. This was a Final Hearing into claims of unlawful deduction from wages by
the claimant against five respondents. If follows a Hearing which was to
have been a Final one on 20 September 2022, which was postponed, and25
the present hearing arranged in its place. The first and second
respondents defend the claims, but there has been no appearance at any
stage by the third, fourth or fifth respondents, who also did not appear at
this Hearing. In the Note of the hearing on 20 September 2022 the Tribunal
noted that documents had been produced by parties, and gave directions30
as to the creation of a single Bundle, which were not followed.
4102453/2022
Page
3
2. There was an initial discussion about the documentation before the
Tribunal, which was in two separate Bundles one from the claimant and
the other from the first and second respondents containing the documents
both of those respondents wished to refer to. Despite that not being the
direction from the Note, I considered that it was appropriate to proceed5
with the documents in those two Bundles.
3. As none of the parties had legal representation I outlined at the start of the
hearing what the issues I considered were, and gave them an opportunity
to comment on them, which they did not wish to do. The issues are set out
below. I also outlined that there may be complex issues of law in relation10
to status, which entity was in law the employer, holiday pay, and issues of
remedy which included the 2014 Regulations referred to below, and the
authority of Bear Scotland, also referred to below.
4. Before evidence was heard I explained to those present how the hearing
would proceed, the giving of evidence, the need to put in cross15
examination firstly any fact that was disputed spoken to by the witness,
and secondly any fact the witness was aware of which had not been
commented on in her evidence in chief but which was to be spoken to by
that party in its own evidence, the need to refer to documents in oral
evidence as they would not be considered unless that was done, and that20
all evidence required to be placed before the Tribunal at this stage as
further evidence was permitted only in exceptional circumstances. I
explained that I could ask questions under Rule 41, but that I could not act
as if a representative of any of the parties in a way that amounted to
entering the arena. None of those present had had prior experience of25
Tribunal proceedings, but were content to proceed. I explained about the
opportunity to make submissions.
5. The hearing was conducted remotely, and I was satisfied that it had been
conducted appropriately. Breaks were taken regularly or when requested
by one of those appearing.30
Issues
6. I identified the following as the issues:
To continue reading
Request your trial