Paula Smith v Barrels Care UK Ltd — 2026

Paula Smith worked for Barrels Care UK Ltd as a care assistant from 6 August 2019 until she resigned with immediate effect on 5 September 2024. Her written contract provided for 36 hours of work per week across Monday to Sunday. The Tribunal found that she regularly worked voluntary overtime, but the amount varied and became binding only when she accepted an offered shift.

The holiday-pay complaint was upheld. Although overtime was not guaranteed, the Tribunal found that it was regular and settled and should therefore have been included in normal remuneration for four weeks of statutory annual leave. The Tribunal distinguished King v The Sash Window Workshop because Smith had been permitted to take paid leave but the payment had been miscalculated, and it applied the statutory two-year limitation period. It awarded £441.14 gross for September 2022 to August 2023 and £583.52 gross for September 2023 to September 2024, totalling £1,024.66 gross, subject to tax and National Insurance and payable by 17 July 2026.

The separate unlawful-deduction claim concerning omitted additional shifts was dismissed. The Tribunal declined to imply a contractual entitlement to 48 hours per week through custom and practice because the express contract specified 36 hours, Smith's working hours varied, overtime was voluntary and dependent on operational requirements, and only the final year reached an average of at least 48 hours. Smith averaged 49.8 hours per week in June 2024 and received her contractual hours in August 2024, so no payment was due for the specified shifts.

The constructive dismissal claim was dismissed. The holiday-pay underpayment was unreasonable but, given the fact-sensitive calculation concerning voluntary overtime, was not a fundamental breach. Refusing Smith's request to treat certified sickness absence from 16 to 19 April 2024 as annual leave was within the respondent's discretion; the Tribunal found that Mr Singh had not promised payment as annual leave and that Smith did not lose the leave. There was also no contractual obligation to provide the additional shifts.

The Tribunal found that the allegations in the Statement of Concern given to Smith on 3 September 2024 had some substance and warranted further investigation. Although its timing and lack of dates made a response difficult, the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to raise the matters. The Tribunal therefore found no conduct calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence and no fundamental breach entitling Smith to resign.

The protected-disclosure detriment claim was dismissed. Smith's grievance of 28 May 2024 concerned the refusal to pay annual leave for 16 to 19 April. The Tribunal found that it did not disclose information and was a personal grievance pursued in Smith's own interests rather than in the public interest, so it was not a qualifying disclosure under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal also accepted that shift allocations reflected staffing and resident needs and found that Smith had not been subjected to detriment for raising the grievance.