Case 3204055/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Christopher Martin v Openreach Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204055/2022
- Decision date
- 31 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Barrowclough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Christopher Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as an apprentice network engineer and was absent from work from March 2021 after developing an ear infection later diagnosed as left-sided mastoiditis with vestibular symptoms. His contractual company sick pay ended in August 2021, after which he received no pay until 24 December 2021, when he was restored to full contractual pay on light duties.
The tribunal found that the claimant was fit and able to return to work for the respondent in at least some capacity for at least part of the period between 11 August and 24 December 2021. That finding was based on occupational health evidence, fit notes, and the absence of steps by the respondent until mid-December to address possible alternative employment or duties.
The tribunal considered the assessment of the period of loss to be not entirely straightforward and partly speculative. Taking account of the time that might have been needed to identify suitable duties, the claimant's likely half-pay sick pay in August, and a November fit note stating he was unfit for any work, it concluded that the fairest outcome was compensation for two months' wages unlawfully deducted or not paid when the claimant was able to work.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim succeeded for two months' gross pay. The claimant had claimed arrears over approximately five months amounting to £5,615.28 net, but the tribunal awarded £3,640.83 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,641 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,641
- across all upheld claims
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.