Claimant v Blackwater Valley Veterinary Centres Limited

The Respondent made a series of unauthorised deductions from wages from May 2021 to 31 July 2023 by paying the claimant incorrectly during her phased return and reduced hours. The Tribunal found the contract was silent on how a daily rate should be calculated. Applying the Apportionment Act 1870, salary accrues from day to day and should be apportioned as 1/365th of annual salary per day. The Respondent's method of calculating deductions based on a notional 260-day working year was not contractually provided for and resulted in unlawful deductions. However, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award sums relating to wages paid before 3 July 2021 (more than 2 years before claim presented).

The Tribunal found the Respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence by: (1) failing to properly respond to the claimant's queries about pay calculation; (2) withholding back pay unless the claimant accepted proposed contractual terms she disagreed with on reasonable grounds; (3) failing to engage with the detail of her objections to the proposed part-time salary calculation. The proposed part-time contract salary would have breached the pro-rata principle under the Part Time Workers Regulations 2000. The claimant did not affirm the contract as she continued to object, worked under protest, and raised a grievance. The Respondent had no potentially fair reason for the constructive dismissal and it was unfair in all the circumstances.

The claimant was a disabled person due to chronic fatigue. The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability (proposing a part-time contract in August 2022 at a disproportionately low salary) succeeded. The unfavourable treatment was proposing a salary that did not comply with the pro-rata principle under the Part Time Workers Regulations 2000. The 'something arising' was the claimant's inability to work full-time hours because of chronic fatigue. The Respondent could not show this was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Time was extended on just and equitable grounds.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the Respondent acted as it did because of the claimant's disability. The Respondent was trying to resolve an ongoing situation of working to sequential fit notes and sought to provide certainty for workforce planning. Although the proposed salary was incorrect, this was not because of the disability itself but arose from the consequences of it (inability to work full hours). The claim of direct disability discrimination therefore failed.