In person For v Respondent — 2019

Ms Cetin worked as a live-in nanny for the respondents' two children. The claim pursued at the hearing was that she had been underpaid because the respondents had not paid the national minimum wage. The central issue was whether Regulation 57 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 applied, namely whether the family exception meant the work was not covered because she was treated as a member of the respondents' family.

Employment Judge Walker found that the claimant was not treated as part of the family for the purposes of Regulation 57. In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal considered the accommodation provided, the meals and food arrangements, the limited sharing of leisure activities, and the detailed contractual restrictions placed on the claimant. The judge noted provisions about guests, privacy, household costs, the use of security cameras, and deductions for failure to consider household costs, and held that these were not consistent with treating her as a family member.

The tribunal also relied on the respondents' burden to show that the family exception was made out. Applying the approach discussed in Nambalat v Taher and Udin v Chamsi-Pasha, the judge concluded that the respondents had not established that the claimant was treated as part of the family. The tribunal therefore held that the national minimum wage applied.

At the remedy stage, the tribunal referred to Regulation 16 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 and the accommodation offset of £6.40 per day. After discussion with the parties, the amount due was calculated as £296.90 gross. Judgment was entered for that sum, with deduction only of any tax and employee national insurance properly due and paid to HMRC.