Case 2408686/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr Edwin Parker (2) Mr Barry McGuigan v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2025
- Case reference
- 2408686/2022
- Decision date
- 21 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr Edwin Parker (2) Mr Barry McGuigan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants, Community Payback Supervisors, brought complaints about holiday pay, sick pay, pay scale or rate of pay, Covid pay, and rest breaks. The first claimant withdrew his holiday pay complaint. The second claimant's holiday pay complaint, and the claimants' sick pay and Covid pay complaints, were dismissed on time limit grounds where applicable; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring those complaints in time and they were not brought within a further reasonable period.
On the pay scale or rate of pay issue, the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimants' salaries had been assimilated to the relevant National Probation Service pay point following transfer. It found the contracts did not contain a clear and unambiguous entitlement to automatic pay escalation to the top of the pay scale.
On rest breaks, the tribunal found that the claimants' work supervising People on Probation required continuing supervision and fell within the Regulation 21 exceptions. It accepted that providing Gallagher-type rest breaks or relief supervisors was not feasible for objective cost, logistical and operational reasons, and that the respondent provided appropriate health and safety protections. The tribunal therefore found no breach of the Working Time Regulations and dismissed the proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The first claimant withdrew his complaint in respect of shortfall in holiday pay. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The second claimant's shortfall in holiday pay claim was dismissed as presented outside the s23 ERA 1996 time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring it in time and it was not brought within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The sick pay complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found relevant historic complaints were out of time or outside the tribunal's power to consider, and both claimants accepted there was no outstanding sum for 2022 sickness absence after payment at 1.0 FTE. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The scale or rate of pay complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found no clear contractual basis for automatic escalation to the top of the pay scale and accepted the respondent's evidence on assimilation to the National Probation Service pay scale. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Covid pay complaints were dismissed as significantly out of time; the tribunal found any claim about pay during the Covid period was discrete and could and should have been brought within the applicable time limit. |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s23(4A) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and another v Agnew and others [2023] UKSC 33
- Poupart v Hounsell and others EAT/712/01
- Regulation 12 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 21 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 24 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Scottish Ambulance Service v Truslove EAT 0028/11
- Grange v Abellio London Ltd [2017] ICR 287
- Gallagher v Alpha Catering Services Ltd [2005] IRLR 102
- Hughes v Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd (No 2) [2011] IRLR 918
- Network Rail Infrastructure v Crawford [2019] EWCA Civ 269
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.