Mr I Akram v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust — 2023

The tribunal dismissed the trade union detriment complaint concerning late payment of paternity pay. It found that the claimant was paid on the normal payroll date for paternity pay, the same as a non-union employee would have been, and that the respondent had in fact tried to arrange earlier payment because it knew he would lose pay through strike action. The earlier payment was not made because of an administrative error by a payroll officer.

The tribunal also held that, if the delayed payment could amount to a detriment, the complaint would still fail because the respondent did not act for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring trade union activities or penalising the claimant for them. The tribunal accepted Ms Middleton's evidence that the payment was processed in the ordinary way and that the failure to expedite it was an administrative mistake.

On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant was a section 222 worker because his rota and remuneration varied according to the timing and incidence of shifts. It held that the respondent's use of a calendar-day divisor for the basic element of holiday pay was wrong, and that the enhancement calculation was also wrong because it effectively divided by calendar days rather than working hours. The unauthorised deduction claim therefore succeeded in principle, but the tribunal could not determine from the evidence whether money was in fact due, so it directed a remedy hearing after further disclosure and calculations.