In person For the v Mr M Bloom, Retired Solicitor Interpreter: Ms Joseph — 2024

The claimant, Mr Artur Suzinowicz, brought a claim for contractual sick pay arising from an 8-week period of sickness absence beginning 18 December 2022. He had already received £794.80 in SSP and sought an additional £2,747.20 in company sick pay. The tribunal treated the issue as whether that additional sick pay was properly payable under the employment documents and whether any wider contractual entitlement had arisen through custom and practice.

The tribunal found that the claimant's 10 April 2014 contract and the 2014 Employee Handbook made company sick pay discretionary. It also found that the 1 December 2019 Attendance Policy and the updated 1 September 2021 policy validly changed the sick pay year and removed the continuous service scale, while leaving the scheme discretionary. The tribunal accepted evidence that updates were communicated through the employee forum and the company app, and concluded that the changes were not a unilateral variation prohibited by the handbook.

The tribunal rejected the argument that the claimant had an implied contractual right to additional company sick pay through custom and practice. It found that discretionary sick pay was only paid sparingly, that only a handful of employees had received it in exceptional circumstances, and that there was no established practice over a substantial period from which a contractual term could be implied. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had previously received only SSP for other absences, apart from one earlier period when he received full sick pay following an emergency hospital admission.

On that basis, the tribunal held that the discretionary company sick pay was not properly payable to the claimant and the claim failed. The judgment therefore dismissed the claim in full and made no monetary award.