Case 2411508/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Summerfield v Milcare Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411508/2021
- Decision date
- 22 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Cowen REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Summerfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Milcare Ltd from 1 July 2021. The tribunal held that training completed between 24 and 27 June 2021 was undertaken before any contract of employment existed, so it was not work for which wages were payable. The 23 June shadowing time had already been paid and was not in dispute.
The tribunal found that the online Parkinson's disease training completed on 5 July 2021 was either mandatory training or was presented to the claimant as such. It accepted that the respondent paid employees for mandatory training, assessed the course at 10 hours, and held that the claimant had not been paid for that time. That gave rise to an unlawful deduction from wages, and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £100 gross.
The tribunal rejected any further unpaid wages claim for 7 and 9 July 2021. It held that travel time was not payable under the contract, that the claimant was not entitled to wages for the cancelled 5 July visit, and that the claimant had already been paid for the remaining client-facing time on those dates. It also considered the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and regulation 34 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, and concluded that the amount already paid met the national minimum wage. The claimant's application for a preparation time order was dismissed under Rule 76.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to pay for the pre-employment training completed in June 2021 because no contract of employment was in place at that time. The only successful element was the 10 hours of Parkinson's disease training completed on 5 July 2021, which the tribunal found was mandatory training or was presented as such and had not been paid. The judgment contains a minor internal inconsistency in the respondent payment figure for later work: it records £156.57 in paragraphs 49 and 71, but £156.67 in paragraph 66; the tribunal's conclusion was that no further sum was due for 7 and 9 July 2021. | Upheld | — | £100 |
| Other | The claimant's application for a preparation time order was refused under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The tribunal found that the respondent had not acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, and did not conclude that the response had no reasonable prospects of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £100
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- Ms I Opalkova v Acquire Care Ltd [2021] 5 WLUK 579
- s.1 NMWA 1998
- regulation 34 NMWR 2015
- Rule 76 ET Rules 2013
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.