Case 4101256/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Judith Hicks v Represented by: Mr M Ballantyne – Solicitor The Richmond Fellowship Scotland Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4101256/2023
- Decision date
- 26 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Bradley
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Judith Hicks
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Judith Hicks had been employed by The Richmond Fellowship Scotland Limited as a Support Practitioner since 19 July 2010. The tribunal found that she regularly worked and was paid for overtime and sleepover shifts, and that her payslips showed those payments over the period from 30 June 2021 to 31 August 2022. She was suspended on maternity grounds on 28 July 2022 and began maternity leave on 22 September 2022. Her grievance about medical suspension and about pay based on usual earnings was not upheld.
Before evidence, the claimant withdrew her section 67 claim for failure to be offered suitable alternative work, and the tribunal dismissed it under Rule 52. The claimant also did not pursue a separate payment order once the respondent had made a payment of £556 on or about 5 April 2023, which the tribunal considered likely to be the net equivalent of the gross amount sought. The remaining issue was whether the claimant's complaint under section 23 ERA 1996 that there had been an unlawful deduction from wages was well founded.
On that issue, the tribunal held that the claimant's normal working hours for the purposes of the 1996 Act were her contractual hours, reduced by agreement to 30 per week, and that her regular overtime and sleepover shifts were not part of those normal working hours. The tribunal also held that the respondent's Maternity Rights and Benefits policy was not contractual and did not create a standalone entitlement. Applying sections 68, 69, 220 and 221 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal concluded that overtime and sleepover pay did not have to be included in the claimant's week's pay for this claim. The section 23/13 complaint was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim under section 67 ERA 1996 for failure to be offered or provided with suitable alternative work. The claimant withdrew it before evidence; the tribunal dismissed it under Rule 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Section 23/13 ERA 1996 complaint. The claimant's schedule sought £736.73 gross for 28 July to 19 September 2022; the respondent made a payment of £556 on or about 5 April 2023 without admission. The tribunal held overtime and sleepover shifts were not part of the claimant's normal working hours for ss.220-221 purposes and declined to make a declaration that the complaint was well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.24 ERA 1996
- s.68 ERA 1996
- s.69 ERA 1996
- s.220 ERA 1996
- s.221 ERA 1996
- Rule 52 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.