Claimant v Mrs C (First Respondent)
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found no contractual obligation for claimants to provide transport for AB or work at AB's home. Claimants were ready and available for work at their agreed place of work (Ms Y's home) from 12 January 2023 onwards. Respondent's failure to pay was therefore an unauthorised deduction from wages.
Tribunal found Ms Z was dismissed by reason of redundancy under s.139 ERA. The requirement for employees to carry out work at Ms Y's home ceased when Mrs C decided AB would no longer attend the Provision. This was a 'place of work' redundancy.
Tribunal found respondent did not genuinely believe Ms Z's place of work was AB's home and had no reasonable grounds for believing she breached confidentiality after inadequate investigation. Dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses and procedurally flawed. However, Ms Z could have been fairly dismissed for redundancy by 30 June 2023 in any event (100% Polkey reduction on loss of earnings).
Facts
Two carers employed by a trust to provide educational and care services to a disabled adult (AB) at the first claimant's home. When transport arrangements for AB broke down in January 2023, the respondent stopped paying both claimants despite them remaining ready and available for work at their agreed place of work. The second claimant was subsequently dismissed purportedly for misconduct (breach of confidentiality and failure to attend work at AB's home) but the tribunal found this was in substance a redundancy when the provision of care at the first claimant's home ceased.
Decision
Tribunal found both claimants were entitled to unpaid wages as there was no contractual obligation to provide transport or work at AB's home. The second claimant was unfairly dismissed as the respondent lacked genuine belief and reasonable grounds for the misconduct allegations, though she could have been fairly dismissed for redundancy by June 2023. Both claimants awarded unpaid wages, the second claimant awarded redundancy pay, minimal unfair dismissal compensation (due to 100% Polkey), and both awarded 4 weeks' pay for failure to provide written contract terms.
Practical note
Tribunals will scrutinise alleged contractual obligations carefully, particularly where informal arrangements have developed over time, and will not imply terms into contracts unless genuinely necessary for business efficacy or so obvious they go without saying.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
100% chance claimant would have been fairly dismissed for redundancy by 30 June 2023 in any event, so no award for loss of earnings
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1302641/2023
- Decision date
- 20 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Team Leader Personal Educational Assistant (Ms Y) and Personal Assistant (Ms Z)
- Service
- 12 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No