Case 2600765/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person (Assisted by his mother - Mrs A Newstead). For the v Mr C Green, Solicitor Agent. — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600765/2019
- Decision date
- 31 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person (Assisted by his mother - Mrs A Newstead). For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as an outreach support worker through Providing Limited for Moving Up Care Limited. He did not sign a contract. The tribunal accepted his evidence on the practical arrangements because the respondent called only its HR manager, not the managers who had dealt with the shifts. It found that late September and early October 2018 emails offered time and a half for CO shifts, but the wording was vague about how long the enhanced rate would last.
The tribunal dismissed the September 2018 wage calculation and the other unpaid wage, premium-rate and holiday pay claims because the claimant could not show how his figures were derived or prove the entitlement claimed. Although it accepted that he had not clearly been told in writing that the time-and-a-half arrangement ended, it still could not reconcile the schedule of loss with the documents, so no further sums were awarded for those periods. The separate request for a 25% uplift for 'aggravating behaviour' was also dismissed because there was no legal basis for it.
Two items succeeded. The tribunal found that 26 January to 25 February 2019 mileage and sleep-in payments totalling £337.40 were due but had not been paid, because they appeared on the timesheets but not on the February payslip. It also held that the £500 iPad deduction was unauthorised under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996: there was no signed contract or written agreement authorising the deduction, the unsigned 'Liability Agreement' was ineffective, and the iPad had been returned by the hearing. The total award was £837.40.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Covered the September 2018 to January 2019 wage, premium-rate and holiday pay shortfall claims, including the 1-25 September 2018 claim for 144.5 hours (£280.50). The tribunal dismissed these claims because the claimant could not prove the hours and amounts claimed, even though it accepted that the 'time and a half' email was vague as to duration. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid mileage and sleep-in payments for 26 January to 25 February 2019. The tribunal found £337.40 was due because the amounts appeared on the claimant's timesheets but not on the February payslip. | Upheld | — | £337 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction in respect of the iPad. The tribunal held the deduction was not authorised by contract or written agreement under s.13 ERA 1996; the unsigned 'Liability Agreement' was ineffective and the iPad had been returned at the hearing. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Other | The claimant's request for a discretionary 25% uplift for 'aggravating behaviour' was rejected because the tribunal found no legal basis for it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £837
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 Employment Rights Act 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.