SAGESSE ELIE v Insight Care Group Limited — 2026

Ms Elie was employed by Insight Care Group Limited as a Support Worker at Orchid House from 7 February 2024 until her employment was terminated on 25 June 2024 during her six-month probationary period. At the start of the hearing she withdrew the claim of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 and the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, accepting that she did not have the qualifying period of service for ordinary unfair dismissal.

The protected disclosure detriment claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 relied on four communications about pay queries and deductions between 31 May and 3 July 2024. The tribunal accepted that Ms Elie subjectively believed her concerns had wider relevance, but applying Chesterton found that the communications were substantially about her own pay and treatment, with other staff not featuring in a meaningful way. The tribunal held that the disclosures lacked the public character required by section 43B and were not qualifying disclosures, so the detriment claim failed at the threshold.

The remaining monetary issue was the respondent's deduction of £1,112.50 from Ms Elie's final payslip for alleged excess holiday pay. The tribunal held that clause 19 of the signed contract was a relevant contractual provision permitting a deduction in principle for excess holiday taken in the current leave year. However, the respondent calculated the deduction using an annual entitlement of 224 hours from an unsigned post-termination addendum; the tribunal found Ms Elie's entitlement remained 238 hours, giving 59.5 hours' entitlement for April, May and June 2024.

The tribunal also found that 14.5 hours of holiday paid at £11.50 related to the previous leave year and could not be clawed back under clause 19, which applied only to the current holiday year on termination. The recoverable excess holiday in the 2024-25 leave year was therefore 71 hours, worth £887.50 at £12.50 per hour. Because the respondent had deducted £1,112.50, it had over-deducted £225, which was an unauthorised deduction from wages and also recoverable under the contract. The respondent was ordered to pay Ms Elie £225.