Case 1304455/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Timmins (the claimant’s son) For the v Mr M Cameron (Consultant) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304455/2023
- Decision date
- 20 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Choudry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Timmins (the claimant’s son) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for arrears of pay and holiday pay. At the start of the hearing the tribunal also addressed an attempted TUPE inform-and-consult issue, but held that it was not pleaded in the claim form and did not permit it to be added at that stage. The claimant then proceeded only with the arrears and holiday pay issues.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s continuity of employment began on 9 September 2014. It found that she had transferred through a series of employers, and that when Care UK applied a static interpretation of Agenda for Change terms after the 2016 transfer, that approach was lawful under regulation 4A of TUPE. The tribunal accepted evidence that the claimant had been given several opportunities to move onto NHS terms and conditions with WMAS, but did not do so.
On the arrears issue, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to be moved to band 4 and was not entitled to the NHS pay increments or pay awards claimed. It found that the increments awarded to employees on NHS contracts were not properly payable to her because she remained on a static contract and had chosen not to accept the NHS contract offered to her. The tribunal therefore held that there had been no unlawful deduction from wages and no arrears of pay were due.
On the holiday pay issue, the tribunal found that there was no evidence to support the claimant’s assertion that 55 hours of holiday entitlement had been deducted. Both claims were dismissed. The judgment did not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerned alleged arrears of pay, including pay increments under Agenda for Change and a move to band 4. The tribunal found the claimant was on a static contract, was not on NHS terms, had not accepted the NHS contract offered to her, and was therefore not entitled to the NHS pay increases or increments claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim concerned an alleged deduction of 55 hours holiday entitlement. The tribunal found there was no evidence that 55 hours holiday pay had been taken from the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 4A TUPE 2006
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.