Claimant v Morningside Manor Ltd

The tribunal found that the respondent unlawfully deducted £1,818.23 from the claimant's final pay. While the training bond deduction of £100 per month was contractual, the deduction of costs related to recruitment and immigration (£1,818.23) was not lawfully made because the contractual documentation did not provide a proper basis for a wage deduction — it only permitted the respondent to seek recovery through the courts. The claim regarding additional hours was dismissed for lack of clarity and proof.

The claimant alleged dismissal under s.104 ERA 1996 (asserting a statutory right to union representation) and s.152 TULRCA 1992 (trade union membership/use of services). The tribunal found the real reason for dismissal was the claimant's failure to meet the performance standards expected of a Senior Care Assistant, as evidenced by a contemporaneous record of concerns about leadership, professionalism, communication, and room presentation. There was no evidence that union membership or asserting the right to representation was the reason or a principal reason for dismissal.

The claimant, who is Filipino, alleged her dismissal was discriminatory. The tribunal found the claimant's race hardly featured in the evidence. The only race-related issue raised was a requirement not to speak in her native language while on duty, which the tribunal found was a reasonable workplace requirement to avoid confusion among elderly, often confused residents. The tribunal found no evidence that race was a factor in the dismissal, and the claimant herself did not cite race as the reason when asked.

The claimant alleged harassment related to race, specifically citing the respondent's policy prohibiting staff from speaking in their native language while on duty. The tribunal found this policy was a reasonable workplace requirement in the context of a care home with elderly and confused residents, and did not amount to harassment. The tribunal concluded it fell far short of violating the claimant's dignity or creating a hostile environment on grounds of race.

The claimant alleged the respondent failed to allow her union representative to accompany her at a disciplinary hearing under the Employment Relations Act 1999. The tribunal found the respondent did permit the union representative, Ms Williamson, to accompany the claimant and to speak at the hearing. The initial correspondence suggesting otherwise was found to be a misunderstanding of the legislation. As the representative was ultimately permitted, the claim failed.