In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, Mrs Georgia Dervisi, worked for the respondent from 2 to 15 July 2019. The respondent did not appear and was in creditors voluntary liquidation, but the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence and the response on the papers. The central pay issue was the claimant's evidence that her salary was £2,916 gross per calendar month, equivalent to £34,992 per year, rather than the respondent's unclear figure of £1,211.53.

Applying Hartley v King Edwards VI College [2017] UKSC39, the tribunal calculated a daily rate of £95.87 on a calendar-day basis. On the agreed 14-day employment period, that produced gross wages due of £1,342.18. The tribunal found that no pay had been received and ordered the respondent to pay that gross sum for unauthorised deduction from wages.

The tribunal made no order on the claimant's itemised payslip request, explaining that it could not award compensation for that omission under Part I of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also held that the statutory right to written reasons for dismissal in s.92 Employment Rights Act 1996 did not apply because the claimant had not been employed for two years.

The claimant's schedule of loss was treated as an amendment to add notice pay. Applying Selkent Bus Company v Moore, the tribunal allowed the amendment, noting that the claim form already referred to dismissal without explanation or notice and that the respondent was not participating. It found the claimant entitled to one week's notice under s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded £671.09 gross.

The request for an additional award under s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was refused. The tribunal said no relevant Code of Practice was engaged, that the dismissal was not disciplinary, and that on the evidence it arose in a short early-employment period during financial difficulties rather than on any prohibited ground.