Cases2500129/2025

Claimant v E2E Homecare Limited

4 June 2025Before Employment Judge A WilliamsNewcastleremote video

Outcome

Partly successful£1,164

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The tribunal found the claimants were employed on a flexible hours contract paying £12 per hour for hours worked, not the original 39-40 hour contract. The claimants accepted they were paid £12 per hour for all hours actually worked, so no unlawful deduction occurred.

Holiday Paysucceeded

The respondent admitted failing to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination. The tribunal calculated the entitlement based on the flexible contract terms (hours worked over previous 52 weeks). Ms Magomana awarded £585.48 and Ms Dhirawu awarded £578.40.

Breach of Contractfailed

The tribunal found the claimants were paid what was properly payable under the flexible contract (£12 per hour for hours worked). There was no breach of contract regarding wages.

Breach of Contractfailed

Ms Magomana's claim for reimbursement of £12.99 for PPE (gloves) failed because the receipt only showed 'miscellaneous', there was no evidence she requested reimbursement, and there was no express contractual term requiring reimbursement.

Otherfailed

The claim for failure to provide written statement of particulars under s.1 ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal found the claimants were given and signed a contract of employment (the Original Contract) prior to starting work in the UK.

Otherfailed

The claim for failure to provide amended written particulars under s.4 ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal found the claimants were given and signed the Flexible Contract when their circumstances changed (inability to drive).

Breach of Contractfailed

The notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found the claimants themselves terminated their contracts without notice on 10-11 September 2024 by requesting to be removed from the rota. Employees who resign without notice are not entitled to notice pay.

Facts

Two migrant workers from Zimbabwe were recruited as carers and signed contracts for 39-40 hours per week requiring a valid UK driving licence. On arrival in the UK, one claimant refused to drive and the other had no licence. The respondent says both signed revised flexible hours contracts paying £12 per hour for hours worked. The claimants denied signing these contracts and claimed they were forgeries, alleging they were entitled to guaranteed 39-40 hours per week. They worked flexibly from February to September 2024 without complaint, then terminated their employment in September 2024.

Decision

The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence and found the claimants had signed the flexible contracts, which superseded the original contracts after they breached a fundamental condition (ability to drive). The claims for unpaid wages, notice pay, failure to provide written particulars and expenses all failed. Only the holiday pay claim succeeded, with awards calculated on the basis of the flexible contract (hours actually worked).

Practical note

A fundamental breach of a contractual condition at the outset of employment can entitle an employer to treat the original contract as void and substitute revised terms, provided there is clear documentary evidence and the employee's conduct is consistent with acceptance of the new terms.

Award breakdown

Holiday pay£1,164

Legal authorities cited

Agarwal v Cardiff University and others [2018] EWCA Civ 2084

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.1ERA 1996 s.13ERA 1996 s.4Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 14(2)

Case details

Case number
2500129/2025
Decision date
4 June 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Carer
Service
10 months

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister