In person For the v Mr Mahmood (consultant) — 2021

The claimant originally brought complaints about arrears of pay and bullying and intimidation, but the tribunal held that it only had jurisdiction to hear the arrears of pay complaint, which it treated as an unlawful deduction from wages claim under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent’s challenge based on the mismatch between the claimant’s name on the claim and the ACAS Early Conciliation certificate did not prevent the claim proceeding; the tribunal accepted that the claimant had made an error in naming Mr Chapman, and that it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the claim.

On status, the tribunal found that the claimant was a worker within section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996. It accepted that she undertook to perform work personally, that the respondent had not proved any contractual right to send a substitute, that she worked under the respondent’s control while on shift, and that she was not running her own business at the time. The tribunal referred to Windle v Secretary of State for Justice in analysing the relevance of mutuality and the absence of obligation to accept work outside each assignment.

The tribunal found that the claimant worked on 17 and 19 November 2021. It preferred her evidence over the respondent’s on the disputed 19 November shift, noting the signed timesheet, the email from the care home, the text messages, and the lack of convincing contrary evidence from the respondent. It rejected the respondent’s account that the claimant had cancelled the 19 November shift, and found that the evidence instead supported her account that the cancellation related to 18 November 2021. The tribunal also found that the agreed hourly rate was £10, not £9.50.

On time limits, the tribunal found that the payment date was 12 December 2021, or if that was wrong then 25 December 2021, so the ACAS Early Conciliation started on 5 March 2022 and the claim issued on 22 March 2022 were in time. It therefore did not need to decide the alternative question of whether it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to be brought within the primary limitation period. The tribunal also recorded that the respondent eventually paid £66.50 on 9 November 2022, leaving £73.50 unpaid from the £140 owed for the two shifts.

The final order was that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages and must pay £73.50. No separate remedy breakdown was given beyond that sum, and no award for injury to feelings or interest was recorded.