Ms E Shambare v Social Work England: 1808021/2025
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s claim for unauthorised deduction of wages is hereby dismissed.REASONS
[1]Claims 1.1. The sole claim of the claimant is unauthorised deduction of wages although she put in her claim form “other payments”.[2]Issues The issues in this case relate to: 2.1. Who was the employer of the claimant at the material time? 2.2. Did the employer of the claimant owe the claimant wages?[3]Facts The Tribunal, having carefully reviewed all the evidence (both oral and documentary) before it finds the following facts (proved on the balance of probabilities): 3.1. The claimant issued her claim against Social Work England. The claimant accepted during the hearing that Social Work England was not her employer but that her employer was Manchester City Council. 3.2. The claimant says that she was owed £7,000.00. It seems that this sum arises because she applied for re-registration as a social worker on 12 December 2024. She had been a social worker since 2020 and she told us that she had to apply for re-registration every year. 3.3. Applications for re-registration the claimant informed the Tribunal had to take place by 30 November 2023, so when she applied on 12 December 2024 she was late. 3.4. The claimant said that her re-registration should have been completed in 20 working days. In fact it was not completed until 2 May 2025 and although not clear it would appear that in this gap the claim for £7,000.00 arose. 3.5. The claimant was unable to say why there was such a gap and because of that she did not practice between 12 December 2024 and 2 May 2025. It also appears that the claimant failed to submit a piece of CPD which was required. 3.6. The claimant says that it was not the fault of the Manchester City Council that she was not paid during the relevant period, that she believed it was the fault of Social Work England that the reason which was because of work demand.[4]Determination of the Issues (After listening to the factual and legal submissions made by and on behalf of the respective parties): 4.1. It is clear that if the claimant had a claim for £7,000.00 or any other sum it was not Manchester City Council that was responsible. 4.2. The claimant says that the only body responsible for the loss of money was Social Work England. 4.3. Because of that, although I have power to do so, I have decided not to dismiss Social Work England as they were not the employer and not to change the respondent to Manchester City Council. 4.4. It would be futile to join Manchester City Council as they are clearly not liable for the claimant’s claim and to ask them to enter a response and to have another hearing would advance the position of the claimant no further. 4.5. Because the claimant feels that Social Work England may be responsible the Tribunal advised her to take advice as to whether she may or may not have a claim but that would not be under employment legislation. 4.6. In all the circumstances the claimant’s claim for unauthorised deduction of wages is hereby dismissed. J Shulman