C Lucas (sitting alone)10 Mr Daniel Muňoz Carrasco v Respondent — 2017

At a preliminary hearing on 23 November 2016 the tribunal determined that Mr Carrasco was a worker within s.230 ERA 1996 for the period 25 February to 30 May 2016 and that he was contractually entitled to be paid for teaching work at £12 per hour and non-teaching work at £6.80 per hour. The respondent had denied that he was employed and said he was self-employed, but that issue was resolved in the claimant's favour. At the final hearing on 10 April 2017 the respondent did not attend, so the tribunal proceeded in its absence. Although the ET1 had referred to discrimination, the claimant confirmed that no discrimination claim was being pursued.

The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages within s.13 ERA 1996 when it failed to pay the full amounts due on 19 April, 19 May and 19 June 2016. The deductions identified were £120.80 for work done up to 31 March 2016, £204 for work in April 2016, and £793.20 for work in May 2016. The first two shortfalls were later paid on or about 19 July 2016, and the May shortfall was paid in late October 2016. By the date of the final hearing no wages remained outstanding, so the tribunal did not make an order under s.24(1)(a) for payment of the deductions themselves.

The claimant also sought sums described in the ET1 as compensation for time spent, currency devaluation, court fees and stress. The tribunal treated the fee request as an application under Rule 75(1)(b) and ordered the respondent to reimburse £390, being the lodging fee of £160 and the final hearing fee of £230. It refused the application for a Preparation Time Order, and it refused the £150 devaluation request and the £4,000 stress claim, holding that it had no jurisdiction to make such an award in a claim under s.13 ERA 1996.