Claimant v CareTech Community Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Respondent conceded the claim for unpaid wages for the period 10 June 2023 to 23 April 2024. Parties agreed the sum owed was £12,967.49.
Tribunal found claims out of time (5½ months late) and declined to extend time. On merits, tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of race. Requesting right to work documents was a legal requirement applied to all staff. Replacing claimant on rota was due to poor communication and management, not race. Burden of proof never shifted to respondent.
Tribunal found the claimant's emails and meeting statements did not amount to protected acts under s.27 Equality Act 2010—they were generalised complaints without alleging discrimination or breach of the Equality Act. Calling the Police was due to claimant's refusal to leave premises causing disturbance, not because of any protected act. Disciplinary proceedings and final written warning were justified by the claimant's conduct (gross insubordination), not victimisation.
Facts
Claimant, a Black African Support Worker, returned from maternity leave in October 2022. Disputes arose over her contractual hours and availability. On 9 June 2023, she attended a shift she believed she was rostered for, but the respondent had removed her from the rota. She was asked to provide right to work documents and refused to leave when instructed. Police were called. She was not paid from 10 June 2023 to 23 April 2024 and was eventually given a final written warning after a delayed disciplinary process.
Decision
Tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction of wages claim (£12,967.49 awarded by consent). Race discrimination and victimisation claims were dismissed as out of time and lacking merit. The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's treatment was because of race, and that her complaints did not constitute protected acts under s.27 as they did not allege discrimination.
Practical note
Generalised complaints of poor treatment, bullying, or breach of contract do not constitute protected acts under s.27 Equality Act 2010 unless they expressly or impliedly allege a breach of the Equality Act; unreasonable treatment alone does not shift the burden of proof in discrimination claims.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2410906/2023
- Decision date
- 2 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Support Worker
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep