Mrs M Berticsova v Infinite Intermediate Care Ltd — 2025

The claimant, a domiciliary care worker on a zero hours contract paid £110 per day, took 28 days of holiday between 25 January and 27 March 2024 for which she received no payment, and was also underpaid during January, February and March 2024 by being paid at £90 per day rather than £110 per day and by not being paid for all days and hours worked. The tribunal found that these unpaid sums constituted unlawful deductions from wages forming part of a series, and in the alternative held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring her claim before she received her payslips after 20 March 2024. The respondent had not complied with an order for further information and its proposed witness did not attend.

In mid-April 2024 the claimant began working for a new employer, set up by individuals formerly connected with the business from which she had transferred to the respondent under TUPE in 2023, and the care package for her regular client was also transferred to that new employer. The tribunal found that on this basis both parties treated the zero hours contract as at an end from mid-April 2024, that neither party gave notice, and that on a zero hours contract there was no right to work or pay during any notice period, so the notice pay claim failed.

On the discrimination and harassment claims, the tribunal found the claimant's evidence about the period after her return from holiday to be confused. It considered the most likely explanation for her not being re-allocated work was that the respondent had learnt she had moved to a different employer and that the client's care contract was moving with her. The tribunal held that there were not facts from which it could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that race was the reason for the treatment, so the burden under s.136(2) Equality Act 2010 did not shift and the race discrimination and harassment claims were dismissed.