Claimant v Infinite Intermediate Care Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found insufficient evidence to satisfy the burden of proof under s.136(2) Equality Act. The evidence regarding the claimant not being allocated work upon return from holiday was confused and incomplete. There was no sufficient evidence to suggest treatment had anything to do with her Hungarian race. The tribunal considered it most likely the respondent learned she had moved to a different employer and the care contract was transferring.
The tribunal did not find facts sufficient to satisfy s.136(2) Equality Act. The claimant's allegations that not offering her work was racial harassment lacked evidential support. The confused and incomplete evidence regarding what happened when she returned from holiday did not establish that any treatment created a hostile environment because of her Hungarian ethnicity.
The tribunal found the claimant took 28 days holiday between 25 January and 27 March 2024 as listed in her witness statement. The payslips showed no payment for any of those days. She was entitled to be paid at £110 per day for those holidays taken. The respondent's contractual term attempting to forfeit holiday pay was not incorporated into her contract and, in any event, applied to accrued untaken holiday rights, not holidays already taken.
The tribunal found the claimant was underpaid in three months. In January 2024 she worked 15 days but was paid for only 14.5 days at £90/day instead of £110/day (shortfall £345). In February she worked 17 days but was paid for only 14.17 days at the wrong rate (shortfall £595). In March she worked 15 days and 2 hours but was paid for only 13 days at the wrong rate (shortfall £502). These were unlawful deductions under Part II Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claim for wages during notice period failed. The tribunal found neither party gave notice and the zero hours contract ended by mutual conduct in mid-April 2024 when the claimant moved to a new employer. As a zero hours worker, the claimant had no right to receive work or pay during any notice period.
Facts
The claimant, a Hungarian domiciliary care worker employed on a zero hours contract, worked caring for a specific client in blocks of 14-20 days at £110 per day. Between January and March 2024 she took 28 days holiday but was not paid for any of them. She was also systematically underpaid in those months, receiving £90/day instead of £110/day and not being paid for all days worked. The respondent failed to provide payslips until after March 2024, preventing the claimant from identifying the underpayments. In mid-April 2024 the claimant moved to a new employer (run by individuals who had previously sold their business to the respondent) and the care package for her client transferred with her.
Decision
The tribunal upheld the claims for unlawful deduction of wages (awarding £1,442 for underpayments in January-March 2024) and for unpaid holiday pay (awarding £3,080 for 28 days at £110/day). The race discrimination and harassment claims were dismissed due to insufficient evidence that the claimant's treatment was related to her Hungarian ethnicity. The claim for notice pay was dismissed as neither party gave notice and the zero hours contract ended by mutual conduct.
Practical note
Employers on zero hours contracts remain liable for holiday pay in respect of holidays actually taken during employment, and cannot rely on forfeiture clauses in handbooks not properly incorporated into contracts or applying only to accrued untaken holiday rights on termination.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6010058/2024
- Decision date
- 4 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Domiciliary Care Worker
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No