De Carvalho v Sonnic Support Solutions (Jersey) Limited: [2024] TRE 46

The Claimant purportedly resigned by a letter dated 8^th December 2023 with notice and agreed to their employment terminating on 8^th January 2024. This date was confirmed by the Respondent with no challenges by the Claimant.

At a case management hearing on 14^th June 2024, the following key issues were held to be determined at a final hearing which took place on 11^th September 2024:

1. Whether the Claimant’s claims for unfair dismissal and failure to provide payslips was submitted in time (Issue 1)
2. Whether the Claimant had one year’s continuous service (Issue 2)
3. The Claimant’s claims for unpaid wages and unlawful deductions (Issue 3)
4. The Respondent’s Counterclaim (Issue 4)

Issue 1

The Tribunal determined that the Claimant’s effective date of termination was 8^th January 2024. Accordingly, under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003, the deadline for filing this claim was 3^rd March 2024. The Claimant submitted its claim on 4^th March 2024. The Claimant argued that they misunderstood the filing deadline and believed that it related to the date of their final payslip. The Tribunal rejected this argument emphasising that ignorance of deadlines is no excuse. The Tribunal further held that the Claimant had failed to meet the threshold to permit the Tribunal to extend the deadline. The Tribunal found that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify the late filing. The Tribunal reinforced the strict interpretation of time limits and noted previous decisions of the tribunal where cases were rejected even when filed one day late. As a result of the claim being filed out of time, the Claimant’s claim for failing to provide a payslip was dismissed (although the Respondent did accept liability for paying wages late and for failing to provide a payslip at the time of payment).

Issue 2

Initially there was a disagreement over the period of continuous service of the Claimant. However, at the time of the hearing both parties agreed that the Claimant had over six years continuous service. Whilst this period of service did make the Claimant eligible to claim unfair dismissal, as the claim was filed out of time, such a claim was dismissed.

Issue 3

The Claimant was initially owed wages for January 2024 which were paid laid. The Claimant also sought reimbursement for certain alleged unlawful deductions. These deductions related to certain training costs and tool repairs. The Respondent acknowledged that the deductions for the tool repairs was made in error. The Claimant’s contract of employment specified that deductions for training costs could be made if an employee left within 24 months of completion of the training, provided a training agreement was entered into.  The Respondent failed to produce such an agreement and as such the Tribunal held that such deductions were not permitted.

Issue 4

The Respondent counterclaimed for the sum of £251.68 concerning unpaid sums for certain training materials and other tool repairs.  The Tribunal examined these claims by reference to the contractual terms that existed between the parties and found that the deductions were not fully substantiated.

Comment

This case highlights the importance of adhering to statutory filing deadlines and ensuring that any deductions from wages are properly documented and agreed upon.

Full Judgement Here