Cases6007229/2024

Claimant v Asda Stores Limited

24 May 2025Before Employment Judge SangerBristolremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for fewer than 39 weeks and therefore was not eligible for Company Sick Pay (CSP) which would have included discretionary 'accident pay'. The claimant received properly calculated Statutory Sick Pay from day 4 of her absence. There was no contractual entitlement to accident pay and the respondent had paid all amounts properly owed under the claimant's contract.

Holiday Paywithdrawn

The claimant confirmed at the hearing that she did not seek to pursue a claim for holiday pay and it was dismissed upon withdrawal.

Facts

The claimant was employed by ASDA as a Night Replenishment Operative from September 2023. After a workplace accident in May 2024, she went off sick and received Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) rather than the more generous Company Sick Pay (CSP). She believed she was entitled to full pay or 'accident pay' based on assurances from her manager and understanding that workplace accident victims received full pay. She had 37 weeks' service but needed 39 weeks to qualify for CSP, which included discretionary payment for the first three waiting days in accident cases.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claim for unlawful deduction of wages, finding that the claimant was not eligible for CSP or discretionary 'accident pay' because she had been employed for fewer than 39 weeks. The respondent had properly calculated and paid SSP from day 4 of her absence, and there was no contractual entitlement to any additional payment. The holiday pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.

Practical note

Contractual sick pay eligibility requirements, including qualifying service periods, will be strictly applied even where a manager has given well-meaning but unauthorised assurances and where the absence results from a workplace accident.

Case details

Case number
6007229/2024
Decision date
24 May 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Night Replenishment Operative
Service
9 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No