September 26, 2022 SCT - Judgments and Orders
Claim No. SCT 294/2022
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,
Ruler of Dubai
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI
BETWEEN
LUFTU
Claimant
and
LITERI
Defendant
| Hearing : | 15 September 2022 |
|---|---|
| Judgment : | 26 September 2022 |
JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI
UPON this Claim being filed on 1 August 2022
AND UPON a hearing having been listed before H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri on 15 September 2022, with the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative in attendance
AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claimant’s claim is dismissed.
2. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge
Date of issue: 26 September 2022
At: 4pm
THE REASONS
The Parties
1. The Claimant is Luftu (the “Claimant”), an individual filing a claim regarding her employment at the Defendant company.
2. The Defendant is Literi (the “Defendant”), a company specialised in restaurant and bar catering services, operating under the trading name of Lastu located in the DIFC, Dubai.
Background and the Preceding History
3. The underlying dispute arises over the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant pursuant to an employment contract dated 5 July 2021 (the “Employment Contract”). The Claimant was hired as a “Chef de Rang” with a monthly salary of AED 7,000, in addition to tips paid as per the company’s policy.
4. The Claimant’s employment with the Defendant commenced on 15 August 2021 and she continued working until 10 May 2022, when she served her resignation by way of letter upon the Defendant. The Claimant’s last working day was on 18 June 2022.
5. The Claimant received her final settlement on 15 June 2022 (the “Final Settlement”). The Final Settlement included payment of her salary for the days she worked in June and payment in lieu of accrued but untaken vacation leave.
6. On 1 August 2022, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) claiming the amount of AED 3,822 for alleged unpaid tips owed to the Claimant by the Defendant.
7. The parties met for a Consultation with SCT Judge Ayman Mahmoud Saey on 24 August 2022 but were unable to reach a settlement. In line with the rules and procedures of the SCT, this matter was referred to me for determination, pursuant to a hearing held on 15 September 2022 (the “Hearing”).
8. At the Hearing, the Defendant refuted the Claimant’s claim arguing that under the Defendant’s company policy that was updated in January 2022 (the “Updated Company Policy”), there were procedures to be followed in relation to staff receiving tips, notably:
“2/ ELIGIBILITY
Are eligible:
All staff from the kitchen, the Bar and the floor.
Are not eligible:
- The Top management and the Owners,
- Any employee who is under a disciplinary procedure (i.e has received a second written warning, or is suspended pending disciplinary hearing, or has been terminated for disciplinary grounds during the given month)
- Any employee leaving (whatsoever the reason and the initiating party) before completing 12 months of employment (applies to the last working month’s tips only)...’’.
9. The Defendant states that monthly tips are not a contractual obligation and are discretionary. The Defendant submits that, as an employer, it has the discretion to decide how tips ought to be distributed between its employees. The Defendant argues that payment of the tips are only withheld from employees in the situation that an employee has committed a disciplinary offense or the employment relationship ends before 12 months service, which is clearly stated in writing in both the staff handbook and the Updated Company Policy, as stated above.
10. The Claimant rejects the Defendant’s submission above stating that she was not aware of the Updated Company Policy. The Claimant argues that the previous policy stated that if an employee leaves the company before 6 months they are not eligible to receive any payment of tips from the Defendant. The Claimant argues that she had no notice nor did she read or sign the Updated Company Policy and therefore it should not apply to her. The Claimant submits that the monthly tips form part of her employment rights and that she is entitled to receive payment of the same.
Discussion
11. This dispute is governed by Employment Law Amendment Law DIFC Law No. 4 of 2021 in conjunction with the relevant Employment Contract.
12. The Claimant’s claim is for unpaid monthly tips for the months of May and June 2022 while working with the Defendant.
13. Upon review of the Updated Company Policy, I find it clear that the Claimant has no contractual entitlement to be paid the tips as she has failed to complete 12 months service with her employer.
14. The Court is satisfied that the Defendant followed its policies and procedures and as a result of the Claimant failing to complete 1 year of service with the Defendant she is not entitled to payment of tips as part of her Final Settlement and, as such, the Claimant’s claims are dismissed.
Conclusion
15. In light of the aforementioned, I dismiss the Claimant’s claims.
16. Each party shall bear their own costs.
