Case 2206178/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Paciorek v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206178/2021
- Decision date
- 12 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Employment Judge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Paciorek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the case was a claim for unlawful deductions of wages under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996. Several complaints were outside the statutory time limit. The tribunal found that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to bring those claims earlier, and that allegations A and B were also barred by the two-year backstop for unlawful deduction claims. Allegations A, B, E and G were therefore outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Two complaints were considered as in-time. On the claim for payment for one day per week of online study during sickness absence from September 2020 to May 2021, the tribunal found that the claimant had been signed off work and had received his sick pay entitlement. It held that he had not shown an entitlement to additional payment for study during that period, and had not produced evidence of the online study carried out.
On the claim that the claimant was contractually entitled to be paid at the top of Agenda for Change Band 3 during his apprenticeship, the tribunal relied on the appointment letter and terms and conditions signed in March 2019. Those documents stated the Band 3 salary and supplement, and the tribunal found the claimant had not shown a contractual entitlement to the top of the Band 3 scale. None of the claimant's claims succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction complaints were not successful. Allegations A, B, E and G were out of time and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear them; allegations D and H failed on the merits. Allegation F was withdrawn after the claimant confirmed he had been paid in full for Covid-related sickness absence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Allegation C, concerning holiday pay while on the Bank contract, was withdrawn after the claimant accepted that the Bank contract provided for a 12.07% allowance for holiday pay to be added to salary. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(4A) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372 CA
- balance of probabilities
- reasonably practicable
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.