Case 2300333/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G A Wontumi v Ethos Family Care Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300333/2023
- Decision date
- 6 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mclaren Representation
- Venue
- London South Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G A Wontumi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a senior support worker from 18 July 2022. On 24 November 2022 he was injured at work when a service user attacked him and he later produced sick notes covering periods from 2 to 16 December 2022 and then January to April 2023. The tribunal found there were no written terms about sick pay, accepted the respondent's evidence that it paid statutory sick pay only, and found no contractual right to full pay or enhanced sick pay.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed in relation to the shift shown on the roster for 27 November 2022 because the tribunal found that date fell in the next pay period and the claimant accepted he was off sick and unable to work it. It also failed in relation to the later sickness periods because the money claimed to top up statutory sick pay was not properly payable. The tribunal noted that statutory sick pay for the relevant period was £99.35 a week and that the claimant's payslips showed payments of £93.56 in several weeks and later £73.69, but held there was no contractual entitlement to sums above statutory sick pay.
The claimant also said that tax and national insurance deductions had not been paid to HMRC. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence, including the P45 and payslips, and found on the balance of probabilities that the deductions had been paid appropriately. It therefore dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim in its entirety.
The notice pay claim was recorded as dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not formally pleaded unfair dismissal and, in any event, had less than two years' service.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim described as notice pay. The judgment records that the claimant said he had not intended to bring this claim and the tribunal dismissed it on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found there was no contractual entitlement to full pay or sick pay above statutory sick pay, that 27 November 2022 fell in the next pay period and was not worked, and that the claimant had not proved any failure to pay tax or national insurance to HMRC. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 13 ERA 1996
- Section 13(3) ERA 1996
- Part II ERA 1996
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.