Case 1300332/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Ms H Boynes, solicitor advocate — 2017
- Case reference
- 1300332/2018
- Decision date
- 5 June 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was first offered a renal passenger driver role by letter dated 16 September 2016, but that offer was withdrawn in writing on 6 October 2016 before acceptance. It held that the parties then entered an oral casual-hours arrangement on 19 October 2016, with no guaranteed hours, pending any renal driving work becoming available. On that basis, the claimant was paid £7.39 per hour until 1 April 2017, when the casual rate rose to £7.54 and the renal-driving rate rose from £7.85 to £8.00.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that he had a fixed 32-hour contract from the outset. It found there were no agreed set hours between December 2016 and June 2017, and no written contract headed 'variable hours' was proved to have been sent to him. It also found that sometime after 9 May 2017 and before 22 May 2017 the claimant orally agreed with Liz Sutton that from 5 June 2017 he would work as a renal passenger driver on a minimum of 22.5 hours per week, with additional hours as he was willing to work. The tribunal accepted the consultation note of 15 September 2017 as an accurate record of the claimant saying his contract was 22.5 hours.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that for the casual period the claimant was paid an additional 10% of the applicable hourly rate as holiday pay rather than taking annual leave, and it treated those payments as credit against any Working Time Regulations liability. For the later period, it found no separate agreed holiday terms and held that entitlement was governed by the WTR. The claimant did not prove that he had been deterred from taking leave, that he was entitled to carry-over on the case he advanced, or that the respondent's later payment of £443.27 failed to correct any outstanding balance. The claims for arrears of pay and holiday pay were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears and underpayment of hours worked from December 2016 to November 2017. The tribunal found the parties had an oral casual-hours arrangement from 19 October 2016, that pay was made on that basis, and that the claimant did not prove any further sum was properly payable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claims for December 2016 to April 2017 and April 2017 to November 2017. The tribunal found a 10% holiday supplement was paid during the casual period, treated that as credit against any Working Time Regulations liability, and found no proved entitlement beyond what had been paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claims about a 32-hour/4 on 4 off contract and later 22.5-hour/variable-hours terms failed. The tribunal found the original renal-driver offer was withdrawn before acceptance, found a later oral agreement for 22.5 hours minimum from 5 June 2017, and held the claimant failed to prove the pleaded contractual case or any loss. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- Constandas v Lysandrou
- Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority
- Jaffray v Society of Lloyds
- Thames Valley Housing Association v Elegant Homes (Guernsey) Ltd
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- King v Sash Window Workshop Limited
- Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. v Shimizu
- Chandhok v Tirkey
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.