A pharmacy has been ordered to pay almost £1,700 to a former employee after his claim was upheld by an employment tribunal - but it has told C+D it plans to appeal the decision “in the strongest terms”.
Court documents published last week (October 16) revealed Witterings Pharmacy in Chichester “failed to enter a response to the claim” by Mr M. Czwodzinski.
Read more: Boots pharmacist wins £60k payout over racial ‘harassment’ and unfair dismissal
Employment judge Smail found “the claimant’s claims to unauthorised deductions (unpaid pay), holiday pay and notice pay (SSP) are well-founded”.
He ordered Witterings Pharmacy to pay Czwodzinski £874 in “owed pay” and £776 in “notice pay”.
Read more: ‘Shocking’: Unpaid locum fees hit highest ever level this year
Judge Smail added that the pharmacy also owed him some £55.10 in holiday pay.
Court documents instructed Witterings to pay a “grand total” of £1695.10 “within 14 days” of the hearing, which was held last month (September 23).
Appeal “in the strongest terms”
But Witterings Pharmacy yesterday (October 20) told C+D that it has “not received the court documents to contest this matter”.
A spokesperson added that the pharmacy is “surprised that [its] side hasn’t even been heard”.
Read more: Tribunal: Boots pharmacist faced racial harassment and unfair dismissal
They confirmed that the claimant “left without working his notice” and had not made anyone “aware of any health issues” or produced a fit note.
The pharmacy said that it would be appealing the ruling “in the strongest terms”.
Tribunal judgements
Last October, an employment tribunal upheld claims of “harassment related to race” brought forward by a Boots pharmacist and found that the multiple’s “grossly inadequate” investigation resulted in his unfair dismissal.
But in July, employment judge Massarella decided that both Boots and a pre-registration pharmacy technician who the pharmacist worked with are “jointly and severally liable” for “injury to feelings” and “aggravated damages” compensation.
Read more: PDA secures over £500,000 for pharmacists “treated badly”
The pair, after additional interest and costs, are responsible for amends totalling £43,736, the documents said.
Meanwhile, the tribunal ordered Boots alone to pay an additional £15,064.
It said it must compensate the pharmacist for his “successful unfair…dismissal claim” and “loss of statutory rights”.
