Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

Mr Parker withdrew his claim for holiday pay. Mr McGuigan's claim for holiday pay was struck out as out of time. He last took annual leave on 14 April 2022 and was paid on 30 April 2022, over 6.5 months before proceedings were issued. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time and he failed to do so within a reasonable period.

Both claimants' claims for sick pay shortfall were struck out as out of time. Mr Parker's sick pay claims related to November 2020 and November 2021, both significantly outside the time limit. Mr McGuigan's sick pay claims for 2020 were outside the two-year backstop. Both claimants had been compensated for sickness absence from May 2022 onwards and confirmed no outstanding sums. The tribunal found these were discrete episodes, not a series of deductions, and it was reasonably practicable to bring claims promptly after each episode.

Both claimants' claims relating to scale or rate of pay were struck out as substantially out of time (claims related to November 2020 onwards but proceedings not issued until November 2022, over a year later). The tribunal also found the claim was weak on its merits: the claimants' salaries had been correctly assimilated under the transfer scheme at £24,801, and there was no contractual entitlement to automatic pay progression.

Both claimants' claims for 'Covid pay' shortfall (November 2020 to February 2021) were struck out as significantly out of time (at least 1 year 3 months before ACAS early conciliation). The tribunal found these were discrete claims relating to a period when contracts and working arrangements changed fundamentally due to the pandemic. It was reasonably practicable to bring claims within the appropriate time limit.

Both claimants' claims for breach of rest break entitlements under Regulation 12 WTR failed on the merits. The tribunal found that the Regulation 21(b) and/or (c)(i) exceptions applied because the claimants were engaged in supervision requiring a permanent presence to protect persons and their work involved continuity of service in relation to prisons/probation services. The tribunal accepted there were objective reasons (primarily prohibitive cost of nearly £27m and significant logistical and administrative difficulties) why compensatory rest could not be provided under Regulation 24(a), and that the respondent afforded appropriate protections under Regulation 24(b) including PPE, training, lone working devices, regular supervision, employee assistance programme, and occupational health access.