Miss Haiqa Kashif v Respondent — 2020

The tribunal held that the claimant's employer at the effective date of termination, 10 August 2019, was the first respondent, Ali Zahid t/a Treatz Glasgow. It dismissed the second respondent from the proceedings under Rule 34 because the tribunal was not satisfied that the trading name had any separate legal identity from Mr Zahid as an individual trading as a franchisee. The decision was reached on the available file material, including an email from Treatz Franchising Limited stating that Mr Zahid was the franchisee and that employment issues for the store should be addressed to him.

The claimant did not attend the final hearing and no ET3 had been lodged by either respondent. The tribunal considered Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, but decided not to strike out or dismiss the claim for non-attendance, noting that it could not infer abandonment and that the claimant's earlier email of 5 December 2019 already set out the sums claimed and how they were calculated.

On the merits, the tribunal found that the first respondent had failed to give itemised pay statements during the claimant's employment, contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and granted a declaration under section 12. It also found an unauthorised deduction from wages, including sick pay, contrary to section 13, and awarded £185.50 on the basis of the claimant's calculation, which the tribunal was not invited to challenge by any response or evidence.

The tribunal further found that the first respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, contrary to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and awarded £276.75 as claimed. The total sum ordered to be paid by the first respondent was £462.25.