(sitting alone) Mr A Panagonov v Canmore Pub Company Limited — 2018

The tribunal accepted the respondents' late ET3 under Rule 20, finding the excuse for the late response weak but deciding that the interests of justice favoured allowing a defence because the respondents might otherwise be shut out from contesting liability. The substantive dispute then concerned unpaid wages and notice pay following the termination of the claimant's employment at the Royal Hotel in Forfar.

The tribunal found that the parties had agreed a salary of £26,000 per annum for a managerial role, equivalent to £500 per week. It preferred the claimant's evidence that he had in fact worked in early July by doing substantive hotel work, rather than merely familiarising himself on an unpaid basis, and held that an implied term arose that those shifts were to be paid. It therefore treated the claimant as having worked two weeks for pay purposes: the early-July week and the full week after his official start on 28 July.

On that basis, the tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction of wages claim and awarded £1,000 for two weeks' wages. It also rejected the respondents' position that the claimant had been a volunteer for the early-July period and accepted that he had been working under the employment contract during that time.

On notice, the tribunal found there was no express notice term and that the claimant had not accrued the statutory minimum notice period. However, it held that a one-week notice term should be implied in the circumstances of a salaried managerial appointment, applying the usual implied-term reasoning of business efficacy, normal custom and practice, and what the parties would likely have intended. The breach of contract claim therefore succeeded, and the tribunal awarded £500 in lieu of one week's notice. The total sum payable was £1,500, subject to the stated deductions for PAYE and National Insurance if the respondents complied with the conditions set out in the judgment.