Mr J Choro Padoh v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust — 2020

The tribunal identified the issue as whether the claimant, a bank support worker, had a contractual right to wages between 13 August and 25 September 2019 and, if so, whether there had been an unauthorised deduction. It found that he worked on a casual zero-hours basis, with no obligation on him to accept work and no obligation on the respondent to provide it, although he was required to perform work personally when booked for a shift.

Applying the employment status authorities cited, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not an employee but was a worker for the purposes of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the wages claim. In the absence of the original engagement documents, the tribunal treated the 2018 Bank Workers Handbook as the best evidence of the parties' relationship, including its provision allowing removal from the bank register and suspension pending investigation.

The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to remove the claimant from the bank register, cancel his booked shift, and prevent him from booking further shifts while investigating the allegation made against him. Because the claimant was only entitled to be paid for work actually undertaken and had no entitlement to payment during suspension, there was no deficiency in wages properly payable under section 13(3) ERA 1996. The claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was therefore dismissed.