Carpenter's payslips compensation claim ripped up

Wednesday 10 October 2018

A carpenter who called for compensation after allegedly never being given a copy of his contract or payslips has had his claim torn up in a tribunal because he couldn’t prove he had ever asked for the documents.

Jose Rodrigues Camacho's former employer, DH Construction Limited, told the Employment Tribunal that he had previously brought similar proceedings against another employer.

Company Director David Harkins told the tribunal he was saddened by the claim as he had a good relationship with his former employee of four-and-a-half years, explaining that they had previously socialised and holidayed together.

The tribunal process began one month after the carpenter resigned in July this year, when he claimed to the tribunal that he had never been provided with a contract or payslips while working at DH Construction. Mr Harkins denied this, explaining that Mr Camacho had refused copies of the documents when he was offered them.

Mr Camacho also told the Deputy Chair of the Employment Tribunal, Michael Salter, that he was not at the tribunal for any money.

But this was refuted by Mr Harkins, who described the claim as “financially motivated.”

He told the Tribunal he had nothing to gain from not providing Mr Camacho with the documents, especially as he knew his employee had brought a claim against a previous employer on this specific issue.

Mr Harkins presented a contract of employment and pay slips for 2016 to 2018 to the tribunal a few days before the hearing. He explained that those for previous years were not available as his computer had broken – a reason accepted by the panel.

Pictured: Mr Camacho's employer said he had refused copies of his pay slips. 

Despite being dated December 2013, Mr Camacho told the tribunal that it was actually signed many months later in a hotel in the UK, although he couldn’t prove this.

He added that Mr Harkins had not given him the contract over fears he would take it to the Jersey Advisory and Concilliation Service (JACS), which provides legal advice on employment matters. 

However, Panel chair Mr Salter pointed out that Mr Camacho had never mentioned this before – a point he found odd given that Mr Camacho had previously been in contact with JACS for advice. 

Rejecting the claim, Mr Salter reasoned in his judgement: “The relationship between Mr. Harkins and him was a warm one and I do not consider it credible that it would have remained like this if Mr. Harkins had refused to provide the contract because, if he did do so, Mr. Camacho may go to JACS, as is alleged. 

“I also do not find Mr. Camacho’s account for why he did not request this contract in writing, whilst employed, to be persuasive bearing in mind he had made written requests for documents from a previous employer after receiving advice from JACS.” 

As for the payslips, Mr Salter said Mr Camacho hadn't convinced him that he had requested them and dismissed his claim.

"Mr. Harkins denies that they were requested and, I can again, see no reason for him to refuse to provide them, when the Claimant seemingly had not challenged the level of his wages and appears to accept he had been correctly paid his wages.”