Case 3332500/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Petetti v Randstad Student Worker Support and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 3332500/2018
- Decision date
- 8 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss L Petetti
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 5 December 2019, Employment Judge Loy sat alone. The claimant did not attend after reporting the death of her father that morning and asking for an adjournment. The tribunal refused to postpone the hearing, proceeded in her absence under rule 47, and noted that the first respondent was not a separate legal entity but the trading name of the second respondent. The claimant's pleaded matters included unpaid wages, holiday pay and loss of earnings, as well as requests that the tribunal require further work to be assigned, intervene in the way support work was allocated, and recommend a fair pay rate for support workers.
The tribunal struck out the three requests concerned with further work, allocation of support work, and a fair pay rate under rule 37. It held that it had no power to determine the respondents' internal management arrangements, that the request for a fair pay rate was not the same as an equal pay claim, and that those claims had no prospect of success. Those claims were therefore brought to an end at the preliminary stage.
The remaining wages-related claims were not finally determined at this hearing. On the documents before it, the tribunal noted the respondents' June and July payslips showing payments of £199.60 and £1,487.88, and accepted the respondent's explanation that the £570.52 figure was an adjustment for an exceptional off-payroll payment already made in advance. The respondents also said the claimant had been paid for the work done for students A, B, C and D, and that holiday pay had already been paid, including 109 hours in August 2018 and 22.5 hours in 2017.
Because the documentary material suggested the wages claims had little reasonable prospect of success, the tribunal made a deposit order of £200 under rule 39 as a condition of continuing to pursue the remaining allegations. The judgment records that the deposit order applied to the remaining wages claims, while the other claims had been struck out.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for the respondents to assign further work; struck out under rule 37 because the tribunal had no power to order the respondents to allocate work. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim asking the tribunal to recommend how the second respondent allocates support work; struck out under rule 37 as a non-justiciable internal management matter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim asking the tribunal to recommend a fair pay rate for support workers; struck out under rule 37 because the tribunal had no power to make such a recommendation and it was not an equal pay claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Remaining wages/loss of earnings limb was not finally determined. The tribunal noted payslips showing June 2018 payment of £199.60 and July 2018 payment of £1,487.88, accepted the respondent's explanation for the £570.52 adjustment, and made a £200 deposit order under rule 39 because the claim appeared to have little reasonable prospect of success. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay limb was not finally determined. The tribunal recorded the respondent's evidence that holiday pay had been paid, including 109 hours in August 2018 and 22.5 hours in 2017, and included this limb in the £200 rule 39 deposit order. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37 strike out
- rule 39 deposit order
- rule 47 absence
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.