Cases2405559/2022

Claimant v Mediscan Diagnostic Services Limited

3 January 2025Before Employment Judge FeeneyManchesterin person

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

Tribunal found claimant entitled to paternity pay (respondent's requirement for MAT B1 form was in the alternative and birthdate was provided), wages for April and May 2022 (timesheet requirement imposed retrospectively was not plausible), holiday pay (claimant worked during periods in August/September 2021 when on furlough and holidays were agreed but not taken), and recovery of bond payments made to Mr Usman (no evidence of genuine personal loan or contractual obligation to pay). Childcare claim failed as private arrangement with Mrs Noman, not part of employment contract.

Unfair Dismissalfailed

Dismissal was for SOSR (expiry of fixed term contract). Tribunal found claimant was not made permanent despite letter of 30 March 2022. CQC suspension meant no work available and other staff had been warned to find alternative employment. While procedure was minimal (only informal 'bathroom meeting'), respondent had made claimant aware contract would not be renewed in dire circumstances of business suspension. Tribunal suggested 100% Polkey reduction would apply in any event as no alternative work available.

Breach of Contractsucceeded

Although claimant was on fixed term contract (no statutory notice required), the employment contract itself provided for one month's written notice. Respondent failed to give written notice as required by the contract. Claimant entitled to notice pay under contractual terms which superseded statutory provisions.

Redundancy Payfailed

Claimant's redundancy case was based on having been made permanent. Tribunal found he was not made permanent and remained on fixed term contract. Dismissal was for SOSR (expiry of fixed term contract) not redundancy.

Holiday Paysucceeded

Tribunal found claimant agreed to take 36 days holiday (18 in August, 18 in September 2021) but worked throughout and was unable to take them. Under Covid regulations (Working Time (Coronavirus) Amendment Regulations 2020), claimant entitled to carry over holidays into 2022. Five day payment in 2022 was described as notice pay, not holiday. Claimant entitled to outstanding holiday pay (exact amount to be determined at remedy hearing).

Facts

Claimant recruited from Pakistan on Tier 2 visa on 3-year fixed term contract as Business Development Manager at £35,000 p.a. from September 2019. Made regular payments totaling £11,400 to Finance Director which claimant believed was to recoup training/visa costs effectively reducing salary, respondent claimed was personal loan. Respondent's business suspended by CQC June 2021-August 2022. Claimant's visa due to expire 7 June 2022. Employment terminated 31 May 2022. Disputes arose over unpaid paternity leave, unpaid wages for April/May 2022, outstanding holiday pay, notice pay, and whether claimant was made permanent via letter of 30 March 2022.

Decision

Tribunal found claimant remained on fixed term contract throughout (letter of 30 March not genuine change to permanent contract). Unfair dismissal claim failed - dismissal for SOSR (expiry of fixed term contract in circumstances of CQC suspension with no alternative work) was fair despite minimal procedure. Unlawful deduction claims largely succeeded: entitled to paternity pay, April/May 2022 wages, holiday pay carried forward under Covid regulations, and recovery of bond payments (not genuine loan). Notice pay claim succeeded as contract provided for written notice. Remedy hearing to determine amounts.

Practical note

Fixed term contract employees on Tier 2 visas are vulnerable to exploitation through demands for repayment of 'bond' amounts; employers must still follow contractual notice provisions even where statute does not require notice for fixed term contracts; and Covid regulations allowed genuine carry-forward of holidays where employees worked during furlough periods despite purported holiday payments.

Legal authorities cited

Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142Nottinghamshire County Council v Lee [1980] CATerry v East Sussex County Council [1976] EATFaye v North Yorkshire County Council [1986] CARochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v Jentus [2001] EAT

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.95(1)(b)ERA 1996 s.13ERA 1996 s.98Working Time (Coronavirus) Amendment Regulations 2020

Case details

Case number
2405559/2022
Decision date
3 January 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
Business Development Manager
Salary band
£30,000–£40,000
Service
3 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No