Mr Philip Best v Mr Daniel Russell — 2019

The claimant, Mr Philip Best, brought a complaint against Mr Daniel Russell on 21 March 2018. The respondent did not file a response and did not attend the hearing. The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed as a bricklayer and labourer, paid at £70 per day for a five-day week, so his weekly pay was £300. It also found that he had not been given a written contract or statement of particulars of employment.

The tribunal accepted that from about October 2017 the claimant was not paid for work he had done. It found that he was not paid for 26 days, producing unpaid wages of £1,820. It also noted that the respondent had ceased to trade as Russell and Company Limited in about July 2017, but the claimant continued working for the respondent afterwards. When the site was cleared in December 2017 and the claimant was not going to be paid, the tribunal held that the respondent's conduct terminated the contract and that the claimant was dismissed within section 95(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had not made a complaint of unfair dismissal.

The tribunal rejected the reference in the claim form to redundancy payment, holding that this was not a redundancy case. It treated that part of the claim as one for notice pay and amended the claim form accordingly. Applying section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and treating the employment as having started on 20 May 2015 and ended on 1 December 2017, the tribunal found that the claimant had two years' continuous employment and was entitled to two weeks' notice. It awarded £700 for breach of contract (notice pay).

Because the respondent had not provided written particulars of employment, the tribunal also made an award of £1,400 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The judgment records a total sum payable of £3,920 made up of £1,820 for unlawful deduction from wages, £1,400 under section 38, and £700 for notice pay.