Ms Judith Wobo v Abi Support Limited — 2024

The claimant, Ms Judith Wobo, brought a claim against Abi Support Limited for unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal first refused her application on the first day of the hearing to amend the claim so as to add alleged unpaid wages falling due after presentation of the ET1. The judge considered the application under Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore, Vaughan v Modality Partnership, and Scottish Opera Limited v Winning, and refused it because it was late, unsupported by a draft amendment, and the claimant could present a fresh claim if the deductions continued.

On the pleaded claim period, the tribunal found that the claimant worked as a support worker, that the respondent provided routes and paid for call time and travel time, and that the contract required payment only for hours worked. The claimant's case that she was engaged for 100% of the time between the start of her first call and the end of her last call was rejected as not credible. The judge found there were periods between calls when she was not travelling or writing notes, that she could and probably did go home on some occasions, and that she was likely usually able to take a 30-minute lunch break if she chose.

The tribunal accepted that note-writing was work within the meaning of the contract, and held that the contractual wording requiring notes to be completed on the same day meant on the same day as the shift, not necessarily during each call. It found that the claimant probably did write notes outside allocated call time on rare occasions, but usually wrote them during allocated call time. The judgment also recorded that travel time had been paid and no further claim in respect of travel time was pursued.

For gaps between calls, the judge applied the approach discussed in DJ v Radiotelevizija Slovenija and held that the question was whether the claimant was free to manage her own time and pursue her own interests. Short gaps, such as 15 minutes, were unlikely to allow that; longer gaps, such as one hour 45 minutes, were likely to do so. The tribunal therefore held that when the claimant was not free to manage her own time and pursue her own interests she was working, but otherwise she was not working within the contract and was not entitled to pay. The amount of any unlawful deductions was not determined on the evidence heard, and the parties were directed to try to agree the position or, if necessary, apply for a further one-day hearing to determine hours worked outside actual call time and travel time and the remedy.