Case 2223873/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Taylor, union representative For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2223873/2024
- Decision date
- 25 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elliott Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr J Taylor, union representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent as a Cleaning Operative from 14 April 2023 to 10 April 2024. After a client complaint at 10 Broadway on 5 January 2024, she was removed from that site and suspended on full pay while the respondent looked for alternatives. The tribunal found the contract and staff handbook gave the respondent a contractual right to require work at different sites, and it accepted that the respondent was acting in a client-led business where site requirements changed.
The tribunal found that the claimant was offered alternative work at Kings Road Park, which she initially accepted on 31 January 2024, and that this was a suitable vacancy. When the claimant did not attend on 15 February 2024, the tribunal found she was not ready, willing and able to work from that date to 10 April 2024. It found there was no right to delay acceptance, no contractual entitlement to a particular location, and no basis for the claimant to stay away from work and be paid. It relied on the wage/work bargain authorities cited in the judgment, including Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust v Gregg and Luke v Stoke-on-Trent City Council.
The tribunal also found that written particulars of employment had been provided. It accepted that the respondent sent the contract and related documents on 14 April 2023, again on 30 January 2024, and again on 28 March 2024. Because the unlawful deductions claim failed, the linked claim relating to failure to provide written particulars could not produce an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 in any event. The judgment therefore states that the claims failed and were dismissed, with no compensation awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was not ready, willing and able to work from 15 February 2024, accepted that the respondent had contractual mobility rights, and held that no wages were due for the period claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | This was the claim about failure to provide written particulars of employment under section 1 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the contract and other particulars were sent to the claimant on 14 April 2023, 30 January 2024 and 28 March 2024, so there was no breach. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
- North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust v Gregg
- Luke v Stoke-on-Trent City Council
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.