Case 1803754/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Addison Mr G Halliday v PossAbilities CIC — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803754/2020
- Decision date
- 28 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Addison Mr G Halliday
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants worked as support workers for the respondent, a social care provider. Their employment had transferred from Calderdale Council to Horton Housing and then to the respondent, and the parties agreed those were relevant transfers under TUPE so that the claimants' transferred terms and conditions were protected. During the hearing, the Tribunal allowed amendments to add a section 23 ERA claim for alleged underpayment during sleeping-in duties and section 11 ERA claims about Bank Holiday time off in lieu. Various other aspects of the original claims were withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal.
On the sleeping-in duty issue, the Tribunal construed the Green Book wording as providing payment for call-outs beyond 30 minutes, not for every disturbance to sleep from whatever source. It rejected the argument that the earlier payment practice had become a contractual right by custom and practice, finding that the initial payments were more likely to have reflected a misunderstanding of the Green Book and that there was no evidence of a local agreement reducing the rate to normal pay only. The claim nevertheless failed because the Tribunal was not presented with evidence establishing the dates of the alleged unauthorised deductions, the dates of the call-outs, or the length of time spent on them.
On Bank Holidays, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's construction of the Green Book wording and held that a "full day" of time off in lieu meant one normal working day for the employee concerned, not the same number of hours as were worked on the Bank Holiday. It rejected the claimants' reliance on later summaries and past practice as proof of a contractual entitlement to hour-for-hour time off. The Tribunal therefore amended the written particulars to include wording stating that if the claimants were required to work on a Bank Holiday, they were entitled to time off in lieu later, with half a normal working day where less than half the normal daily hours were worked and one normal working day where more than half were worked.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under section 23 ERA 1996 for alleged unauthorised deductions in relation to disturbances during sleeping-in duties. The Tribunal held that the Green Book clause covered call-outs beyond 30 minutes, not any disturbance to sleep, and it was not satisfied on the evidence that specific unauthorised deductions had been proved. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Reference under section 11 ERA 1996 concerning the statement of entitlement to time off in lieu for Bank Holiday work. The Tribunal declared that the written particulars should state that if the claimant is required to work on a Bank Holiday, they are entitled to time off in lieu later, with half a normal working day if less than half the normal daily hours were worked and one normal working day if more than half were worked. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Section 13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 13(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 23(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 11 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 4, Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 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.