Case 3202047/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Kaseruuzi v Glenavon Care and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202047/2019
- Decision date
- 17 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms N Kaseruuzi
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a carer for Glenavon Care Limited from 17 June 2017 until 21 May 2019 and was dismissed on 7 May 2019 for persistent lateness and rota changes. She withdrew her unfair dismissal claim at a preliminary hearing on 8 January 2020, and the claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed upon withdrawal.
On the unlawful deduction from wages complaint, the tribunal construed the contract as providing for an average of 35 hours in each four-week pay period at £9.50 an hour. It accepted that some deductions were not justified on their face, including payments said to relate to care for Mr Robert Walker, shortfalls in the 14 July to 5 October 2018 periods, a DBS fee of £62, and a car-related deduction of £95. It applied the Bear Scotland series-of-deductions approach and held that the July to October 2018 underpayments formed a series, but that they did not form one series with the earlier Mr Walker deductions or the later DBS and car items.
The tribunal then held that the claim was outside the primary three-month time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have initiated ACAS Early Conciliation in time. It rejected the claimant's explanation based on anxiety and depression as insufficiently supported by medical evidence for the relevant period. As a result, although the tribunal identified unauthorised deductions in substance, it held that it had no jurisdiction to award them and the unlawful deduction claim failed.
On holiday pay, the claimant sought to carry over unused 2018 holiday into 2019 and also complained about the amount paid on termination. The tribunal found that the contract and the 2018 Staff Handbook did not give a right to carry over unused holiday, and it accepted the respondent's evidence that the pre-existing position did not permit carry-over. It found that the claimant had been paid £520.13 for accrued but untaken holiday in her final payslip and that the respondent later added 74p after recalculating the amount. The complaint of failure to pay holiday pay was therefore not well founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Withdrawn at the preliminary hearing on 8 January 2020; the judgment records that it would be dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found some deductions were not justified in substance, including sums said to relate to Mr Walker, July to October 2018 hours, a DBS fee and car hire, but held the claim was out of time and that it had no jurisdiction to award any sum. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal rejected the claim for carried-over holiday and held the 2019 holiday pay claim was not well founded; the respondent had already paid the accrued but untaken holiday due on termination, subject to an extra 74p top-up. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Bear Scotland Limited and others v Fulton series-of-deductions test
- s.23 ERA 1996 three-month time limit
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council reasonably practicable test
- Asda Stores Limited v Kauser reasonably practicable test
- Norbert Dentressangle Logistics Limited v Hutton illness evidence guidance
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd focus on closing stages
- Pimlico Plumbers v Smith oral submissions guidance
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.