Mrs N Mohamoud v Sakinas Healthcare Ltd T/a Surecare Bolton: 2404554/2019
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2404554/2019
Between
Mrs N MohamoudClaimantSakinas Healthcare Limited trading as Surecare BoltonRespondent
Before
Employment Judge HoeyHerself for claimantMr Jones (instructed by Counsel) for respondentRepresenting herself for claimantDate 11 June 2019
JUDGMENT
[1]The respondent’s designation is changed to that as set out above.[2]The claim for unlawful deduction of wages is dismissed, the respondent having paid the claimant all sums (in terms of sick pay) due to her.
REASONS
This case called for a final Hearing following which an Oral Judgment was issued dismissing the claims. These reasons are provided following a request from the claimant. The claimant had raised claims for unpaid wages. She asserted that she had submitted a Fit Note and not been paid sums due to her. The respondent denied that any sums were due, the claimant’s employment having ended on 20 November 2018 and the claimant having received all sums due to her. The respondent denied receiving a Fit Note for the period in question. As a preliminary issue, the respondent’s designation was corrected, by consent, to that contained above which is its correct designation. The Tribunal heard from the claimant herself together with the Director of the respondent. There was also an agreed bundle to which the Tribunal was directed. The issues At the outset of the hearing we discussed what the claims were together with the issues that required to be determined. It was agreed that the issues arising were:
The issues
[1]Whether a fit note covering the period to 20 November 2018 was submitted by the claimant to the respondent[2]Whether the claimant’s employment ended on 20 November 2018 and if not, when did her employment end? Case Number: 2404554/2019 2 of 3[3]Were wages (in the form of sick pay) due to be paid to the claimant up to the end of her employment? It was agreed that while this Tribunal has no power to determine entitlement to statutory sick pay, if the claimant was entitled to those sums (which amount to pay) and the respondent did not pay the sums that were properly due, such deductions would be regarded as unlawful deductions in terms of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Findings of fact I make the following findings in fact which I do on the balance of probabilities, having heard oral evidence and considered the papers within the Bundle to which my attention was directed. I have restricted my findings to the issues that require to be determined by the Tribunal, which are in short compass. The claimant was paid statutory sick pay for the period 12 October 2018 to 12 November 2018 following the claimant’s submission of a Fit Note. No Fit Note was received by the respondent for the period after 12 November 2018. The claimant attended a meeting with the respondent on 20 November 2018 at which it was agreed that the claimant’s employment would end, by mutual agreement, on 20 November 2018. The claimant argued that her employment did not end on that date but I accepted the evidence of the respondent which was confirmed in the note taken at the time of the meeting, which I am satisfied was read to the claimant at the time. I accept the respondent’s evidence that the clamant said this was the best decision for her. The claimant was paid all sums to which she was entitled from the respondent by way of sick pay. Law In terms of the Employment Rights Act 1996, if a claimant receives wages (which includes sick pay) which is for a sum less than that which is properly payable under the contract of employment, the Tribunal can order the respondent to pay an amount that reflects the sum which ought to have been paid.