Claimant v Gloucester Care Services Ltd t/a Caremark Cheltenham Gloucester and Tewkesbury

The Claimant was not paid properly for the hours she worked and complained about this. Not paying an employee properly for the work done is a fundamental breach of contract. The tribunal found that the Claimant's longstanding and unresolved concerns about short pay were a material cause of her resignation. Despite the resignation email not referring to reasons, the tribunal accepted her evidence that she feared repercussions.

The tribunal accepted the Claimant's husband's detailed analysis showing that the Claimant's work time was under-recorded by the Respondent. Over the entire employment period, the Respondent underpaid the Claimant by £4,131.90 for working time between first and last clients. The tribunal did not trust the Respondent's general assertions and preferred the Claimant's evidence showing a pattern of exploitation of vulnerable migrant workers.

The tribunal found that the Claimant was entitled to 11.2 weeks holiday pay at £480.17 per week totalling £5,377.90. She was actually paid only £3,068.68, leaving a shortfall of £2,309.22. The tribunal accepted evidence that the Respondent made it very difficult or impossible for the Claimant to take her full holiday entitlement, often refusing requests citing 'insufficient capacity'.

The tribunal found the Respondent owed the Claimant £304.47 for unpaid wages from 15-17 November 2024 which was conceded by the Respondent. Additional breaches included a visa fee refund of £560 that the Respondent received but did not pay to the third party immigration advisor, and £280 for an unpaid bonus and DBS refund promised through the recruitment agent but never paid.

The tribunal awarded 4 weeks' pay (£1,920.80) under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for the Respondent's failure to provide proper written particulars of employment. The contract failed to explain basic remuneration matters including how working time was calculated, the Access People Planner system, and mileage payment terms, causing confusion for vulnerable workers. The tribunal found it just and equitable to award the maximum 4 weeks rather than the minimum 2 weeks.