Claimant v Ethica Care Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant made protected disclosures to the first and third respondents and that the first and/or third respondents subjected the claimant to three specific detriments on the ground that he made those protected disclosures: being made to take leave from 3 February 2023, being asked whose side he was on and told that if he was on the first respondent's side the third respondent would have his back on 9 February 2023, and being denied work between 3 and 23 February 2023.
The tribunal found that the first and/or third respondents subjected the claimant to detriments contrary to section 47B ERA specifically relating to: being made to take leave from 3 February 2023, intimidating treatment on 9 February 2023, and failure to provide work between 3 and 23 February 2023.
The tribunal found that the first respondent breached the claimant's rights to daily rest under regulation 10 WTR on multiple dates between October and December 2022, and breached his right to weekly rest under regulation 11 WTR for two specific periods: 21 October - 13 November 2022 and 26 November - 11 December 2022. The complaints were brought out of time but the tribunal extended time as it was not reasonably practicable to bring the complaints within the primary limitation period.
The complaint that the fourth respondent subjected the claimant to a detriment by telling the claimant that he was not entitled to bring a grievance was dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal.
The complaint that the claimant suffered a detriment for raising health and safety concerns contrary to section 44(1)(c) ERA was dismissed by the tribunal without detailed reasoning provided in this judgment summary.
Facts
The claimant worked as a worker (not an employee) for Ethica Care Services Limited, a care services provider. Between October and December 2022, the claimant worked excessive hours without adequate daily or weekly rest breaks. The claimant made protected disclosures to the first and third respondents. Following these disclosures, on 3 February 2023 the claimant was made to take leave, on 9 February 2023 the third respondent asked the claimant whose side he was on and stated he would have his back if he was on the company's side, and the claimant was not provided with work between 3 and 23 February 2023.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant was a worker but not an employee of the first respondent, and had no employment relationship with the second respondent. The tribunal upheld the whistleblowing detriment claims finding that the first and/or third respondents subjected the claimant to three specific detriments because he made protected disclosures. The tribunal also upheld Working Time Regulations breaches for multiple instances of insufficient daily and weekly rest between October and December 2022, extending time on the basis it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claims earlier.
Practical note
A care worker denied as an employee but recognised as a worker can succeed in whistleblowing detriment claims based on intimidation and withdrawal of work, and in Working Time Regulations claims even where brought out of time if not reasonably practicable to bring them earlier.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2207969/2023
- Decision date
- 10 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 11
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No