1) Mr A Darguzas & 2) Mr M Solopa v AJT Management Consultancy Ltd — 2022

This was a multiple claim by Mr A Darguzas and Mr M Solopa concerning unpaid wages while they were working as carpenters on a building site. The respondent denied that it had employed them and said they had been employed by Laider Luxstone Ltd. The tribunal had invited the claimants by letter dated 22 September 2021 to respond to that point, but no response was received.

The claimants did not attend the hearing on 24 January 2022. Notice of the hearing had been sent on 25 August 2021 and later converted to a CVP hearing. At the start of the hearing only the respondent's representative was present. Mr Darguzas had only provided an email address and Mr Solopa only a postal address. Neither claimant had contacted the tribunal before the hearing to say they could not attend.

The clerk emailed Mr Darguzas at 10.12 am and again shortly afterwards to ask whether he was able to attend. The hearing was delayed for connectivity reasons and did not begin until 11.25 am. At 11.19 am Mr Darguzas emailed the tribunal saying he could not attend because he was working. There was no contact from Mr Solopa.

Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the judge considered the reasons for absence and decided to dismiss the claims. The reasons given by Mr Darguzas were found not satisfactory, and Mr Solopa had given no indication that he would not attend. The judgment also noted that, in any event, the burden was on both claimants to show that the respondent had not paid wages that were properly payable.