Claimant v Lumi Support Limited

The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant statutory holiday pay throughout his employment from June 2022 to March 2024. The parties agreed the sum owed was £431.38 plus £168.28 interest.

The tribunal found unauthorised deductions were made in respect of unpaid holiday pay throughout the claimant's employment. This claim succeeded on the same basis as the holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations.

The tribunal found the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay holiday pay to which he was entitled. The contractual claim succeeded on the same factual basis as the statutory claims.

The claimant alleged his shifts were reduced in March 2024 because he raised holiday pay issues. The tribunal found the reduction was due to poor planning around his resignation date, not retaliation for raising Working Time Regulations rights. The respondent did not know his exact leaving date and covered shifts with other staff to ensure continuity of care for vulnerable residents.

The claimant alleged the respondent circulated false accusations that he was stirring up trouble over holiday pay claims. The tribunal found no deliberate attempt to stir up false accusations; any misunderstanding arose from normal miscommunication when the claimant purported to speak on behalf of colleagues without their authority.

The claimant alleged breach of privacy through unauthorised access to his personal emails and search history. The tribunal found this did not happen. The search history was on a work laptop used by all staff, and viewing it was not a breach of privacy. There was no encouragement by management to access the claimant's data.

The tribunal found the claimant raised issues about unpaid holiday pay which potentially constituted a protected disclosure. However, it was not necessary to determine all elements of the whistleblowing claim because the tribunal concluded any detriments were not done on the ground of the disclosure.

Claim for failure to provide written statement of employment particulars under ss.1, 2, 3 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The tribunal found the claimant was not provided with a statement when he started work and the respondent admitted this breach. This triggered additional compensation under s.38 Employment Act 2002.