No appearance For the v Vicky Hilton The — 2022

The claimant did not attend the hearing on 4 February 2022. The tribunal proceeded in her absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 after finding that she had notice of the hearing, had received the joining details, had said she was at work but had not applied to postpone, and had not responded to attempts to contact her. The respondent attended and the tribunal noted that neither side had complied with an order to produce witness statements or documents, so they were on an equal footing on that point.

The claimant’s ET1 asserted that she started work on 23 April 2018, that the respondent was saying she started in June 2018, and that she wanted her 'month in hand' of £950. The respondent’s evidence, given by Dean Hilton, was that employment started on 27 April 2018, that the claimant gave notice by telephone on 5 May 2021, and that her employment ended on 15 May 2021. The tribunal accepted 27 April 2018 as the commencement date and 15 May 2021 as the last date of employment on the basis of the best evidence before it.

The tribunal accepted the respondent’s payroll schedule, which showed the claimant was paid under a 'month in hand' arrangement and was paid for the whole period of her employment, including the notice period. The schedule showed, by way of example, a payment of £889.73 on 26 April 2019 for the period 27 February to 26 March 2019, and it covered pay periods from 27 April 2018 to 17 May 2021 and pay dates from 26 June 2018 to 26 June 2021. The claimant produced no evidence of any deduction from wages or any failure to pay wages.

Applying section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, section 13 of that Act, and the breach of contract jurisdiction under section 3 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, the tribunal held that the claimant had not established her case on the balance of probabilities. The unlawful deduction of wages claim was dismissed, and any claim for breach of contract was also dismissed. No monetary award was made.