P OVAT v Effective Security Services Ltd T/A Professional Security — 2026

The tribunal upheld P Ovat's unlawful deductions from wages claim against Effective Security Services Ltd, trading as Professional Security. It found that his basic hourly pay was below the applicable national minimum wage of £11.44. His separately calculated rolled-up holiday pay was an advance of wages excluded from minimum wage remuneration under regulation 10(1)(a) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. The tribunal also held that holiday pay calculated at 12.07% had to be based on a lawful basic rate. It did not accept the respondent's reliance on HMRC guidance to include the holiday payments in its minimum wage calculation.

The claims for automatic unfair dismissal under sections 103A and 104A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, minimum wage detriment and whistleblowing detriment were dismissed. Ovat had complained about his pay on 21 August and 1 October 2024. The respondent accepted that the October disclosures were protected and asserted his right to the national minimum wage. Worker status was conceded. The tribunal did not determine employee status because the dismissal claims failed on causation.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent stopped providing shifts after Ovat's last shift on 9 November 2024. It found that a vetting process connected with immigration requirements and security accreditation explained suspensions for a short period in November and after the end of December. It also found that Ovat had given the impression that he would not take work for two weeks after the incident on 2 November. Neither the protected disclosures nor the assertion of minimum wage rights played any part in the decision to offer no further shifts.

The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to disclose relevant documents, including its vetting policy. It nevertheless held that system screenshots and email exchanges supported the existence of the vetting process and outweighed that failure when assessing the reason for the suspensions. Although it found that the pay complaints had irritated the respondent, it also relied on an extension granted through Mr Boyd's intervention after he had expressed concerns about the complaints. It found no material influence from the disclosures or assertion of rights.

The whistleblowing detriment claim concerning reimbursement for glasses and a chain also failed. The tribunal accepted that Ovat had sustained injuries during the 2 November incident. It found that Mr Boyd knew of the injuries but did not pass the information correctly to Mr Kelly, who dealt with the insurance arrangements. Nobody took responsibility for an incident regarded at the time as involving relatively minor physical injury. The tribunal found that this failure to relay information explained the absence of reimbursement, with no causal connection to Ovat's protected disclosures or assertion of statutory rights.