A. Salas Garcia v Amiable People Limited t/a Blossom Home Care — 2026

The claimant brought claims of constructive dismissal, whistleblowing, religion or belief discrimination, unlawful deduction of wages, and a failure to provide written particulars. The constructive dismissal and whistleblowing claims had already been dismissed at a preliminary hearing. At the final hearing on 13 to 15 January 2026, the tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from Josephine Iba and Innocent Iba, and preferred the respondents' evidence and the contemporaneous records where there was conflict.

On the religion or belief allegations, the tribunal accepted that Josephine Iba had introduced the claimant to FriendSpeak because his spoken English was weak and he wanted help with language skills. It found no evidence that she forced him to attend church, that the respondent cared whether he attended church, or that any adverse treatment was connected to religion. The tribunal also rejected the allegation that promotion had been denied for religious reasons, finding instead that the Care Co-ordinator offer was withdrawn after the claimant admitted he did not have the required qualification.

On wages, the tribunal rejected claims for payment for the induction training, Curve Learning, client meetings, report-writing, WhatsApp activity, and a claimed £25 hourly rate. It found that the claimant was paid for the work logged in the app, that Curve Learning and the WhatsApp group were voluntary, and that the meetings were paid at the carer rate. The tribunal considered that the 10.5 hours of compulsory induction training probably counted as work for national minimum wage purposes under the approach in Opalkova and section 54 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, but it held that any complaint about payment for that training was out of time under section 23 ERA 1996; it noted that pay for the training would have fallen due at the end of November 2024, the limitation period would have expired on 29 February 2025, and early conciliation was not started until 14 May 2025.

The tribunal further held that the respondent was not in breach of its duty to provide particulars of employment. The claimant had been shown the principal statement, signed it on the managing director's tablet, had continuing access to it through the care app, and was sent another copy by email when he later asked for it. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.