Miss C Edwards v Home Angels Healthcare Services Ltd: 3310553/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3310553/2023
Between
Miss C EdwardsClaimantHome Angels Healthcare Services LimitedRespondent
Before
Employment Judge SmeatonIn person for claimantDate 2 August 2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed.[2]The Claimant’s claim of unauthorised deductions of wages succeeds, in part. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum equivalent to 66 days’ pay. Such sum is to be increased by 25% to take into account the Respondent’s failure to comply with the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.[3]The Claimant’s claims for unpaid notice pay, holiday pay and pension entitlements fail and are dismissed.
REASONS
[1]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent from 1 April 2017 as a Senior Carer. It is the Claimant’s case that she was dismissed by the Respondent on 31 May 2023. The Respondent does not accept that the Claimant was dismissed and maintains that she remained employed, although did not present herself for work, until January 2024.[2]By a claim form dated 23 August 2023, following a period of Acas early conciliation between 16 June 2023 and 17 July 2023, the Claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and unpaid notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay and ‘other payments’. Hearing[3]The Claimant appeared unrepresented. She attended with a friend, Ms Small, as support. Ms Small also gave evidence on the Claimant’s behalf.[4]The Respondent was represented by Mr Irby (director) and Miss Drablow (manager/secretary). Initially it was agreed that Miss Drablow would speak on behalf of the Respondent. It subsequently became clear that Mr Irby was better informed about the relevant events and I agreed that he could take over conduct of the Respondent’s case. I ensured that only one individual ‘had charge’ of the Respondent’s case at any time, so as not to overwhelm the Claimant.[5]I was provided with a joint bundle of documents comprising 47 pages. That included a short statement said to have been provided by Mr Irby but signed by Ms Drablow. The Claimant did not provide a statement on her own behalf but indicated that she was content to adopt her claim form as her evidence. She provided a statement from Ms Small.[6]On the day of the hearing, the Claimant handed up an additional small bundle of documents which she had sent to the Respondent in advance. She said she had sent these to the Tribunal but they had not made their way to the Tribunal’s file. The Respondent had not brought a copy of that bundle. The Tribunal photocopied it for the Respondent. This additional bundle included historic disputes/grievances, wage sheets and time sheets (up to 2022 only) and text messages between the Claimant and Mr Cook (the Respondent’s finance manager) between 2022 and 31 May 2023. All parties had the same documents before them before the evidence commenced.[7]The issues in dispute were not at all clear from either the Claimant’s claim or the Respondent’s response. The Respondent’s ET3 form did not contain any narrative response. Miss Drablow indicated that she had completed the relevant box at the time and was unsure why it did not appear. She confirmed, however, that the information in Mr Irby’s statement essentially said the same thing.[8]At the outset of the hearing I spent some time clarifying the claims and issues with the parties. They are now recorded below. It became clear during those discussions that the Claimant was not claiming constructive unfair dismissal. It is her case that she was dismissed by the Respondent, not that she resigned in response to a fundamental breach of contract. She accepts that she did not receive a letter confirming her dismissal and that she was not expressly told that she was dismissed, but maintains that her dismissal could be inferred from the Respondent’s conduct. She does not know exactly when she was dismissed.[9]In the alternative, the Claimant says that if she was not dismissed she was willing and ready to work from 29 May 2024 and ought to have been paid from that date onwards. She does not give a date when she says she stopped being available for work, although she started new employment on 22 September 2023.[10]The Respondent’s case is that the Claimant was not dismissed (until January 2024). It denies that any money is due to the Claimant and maintains that it was contacting her about work throughout June, July and August 2023 with no response. Claims and issues[11]Unfair dismissal (s.94(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA 1996’)) 11.1. Was the Claimant dismissed and, if so, when? 11.2. If the Claimant was dismissed, was it for a potentially fair reason? The Respondent has not put forward a potentially fair reason for dismissal. 11.3. Was the dismissal reasonable in all the circumstances?[12]Unauthorised deductions from wages (notice pay) (s.13(1) ERA 1996) 12.1. It is not in dispute that, if the Claimant was dismissed, she will be entitled to notice pay of six weeks.[13]Unauthorised deductions from wages (sick pay) 13.1. It is not in dispute that, as at 31 May 2023, the Claimant had accrued 4.3 days of holiday pay entitlement and that, if she was dismissed, she will be entitlement to payment in respect of those untaken holiday days.[14]Unauthorised deductions from wages (unpaid wages) 14.1. It is not in dispute that the Claimant has only been paid up to 27 May 2023. 14.2. Was the Claimant willing and ready to work on 29 and 30 May 2023? 14.3. If the Claimant was not dismissed on 31 May 2023, was she willing and ready to work on that day and thereafter? Until what date?[15]Unauthorised deductions from wages (pension) 15.1. Do the Respondent’s pension contributions fall within the definition of wages within s.27(1)(a) ERA 1996? The law Unfair dismissal
The law
[16]The burden of proof is on the Claimant to show, on the balance of probabilities, that there has been a dismissal.[17]A dismissal need not be in writing nor conveyed expressly. A dismissal can be implied from the employer’s conduct (Sandle v Adecco UK Ltd UKEAT/0028/16). The employer’s unequivocal intention to dismiss must, however, still be communicated to the employee in a way that would be understood by the objective observer.[18]The words or conduct terminating the contract must amount to a plain and unambiguous termination by the employer. Words or conduct which reasonably leave the employee in doubt as to whether the employer has terminated the contract will not amount to a dismissal (Feltham Management Ltd and others v Feltham and others EAT 0201/16). Context is crucial and all relevant factors must be taken into account. Unlawful deductions from wages[19]The question of what wages are ‘properly’ payable to a worker under s.13 ERA 1996 is critical to determining whether an unlawful deduction has been made. There must be some legal entitlement to the sum in question (New Century Cleaning Company Limited v Church [2000] IRLR 27, CA). In determining what is properly payable, the Tribunal can resolve any dispute as to the meaning of the contract relied on (Agarwal v Cariff University and another [2018] EWCA Civ 204).[20]An employee who is contractually entitled to work and pay but who does not work, must show that he or she is ready and willing to perform work to avoid a deduction from pay.[21]Whether a not a worker is ‘ready and willing’ to work involves an examination of the worker’s situation and intentions.[22]If the employee is ready and willing to work, and the inability to work is the result of a third-party decision or external constraint, any deduction may be unlawful depending on the circumstances.[23]Determining an employee’s ‘normal working hours’ is the first stage in calculating the employee’s weekly pay. The normal working hours may be stipulated in the employee’s contract or may be determined by reference to the number of hours actually worked. For workers with normal working hours whose pay varies, either by reference to the time of work or the amount of work done, a week’s pay is calculated using the worker’s average remuneration over the previous 12 working weeks (s.221(3) and (4) ERA 1996) (counting back from the date of the deduction).[24]If the calculation date falls on the last day of a week, the period of 12 weeks is taken as ending on that day. If not, the 12-week period is the 12 calendar weeks ending with the last complete week before the calculation date (s.221(3) ERA 1996).[25]A week’s pay is calculated by reference to gross pay, before deduction of tax or national insurance.
Findings of fact
[26]I was not entirely satisfied with the evidence given by either the Claimant or Mr Irby. At times, both of them gave evidence which was inconsistent with things they had said previously or which were documented in writing. They were not always detailed in their answers.[27]Overall, however, I preferred the evidence of the Claimant. On the key issues, her evidence was clear, consistent and detailed. It was supported in some respects by documentary evidence and by the evidence of Ms Small, who I found to be a cogent and credible witness. Ms Small did not seek to exaggerate her any evidence in anyway and was not undermined in any significant way in questioning by Mr Irby.[28]The Respondent’s credibility was undermined in particular by the inconsistent evidence given by Mr Irby (e.g. in respect of the contract which applied to the Claimant and whether Mr Irby had removed work from the Claimant at the end of May 2023). Mr Irby was, at times, vague and evasive in his evidence.[29]On the basis of the evidence heard and presented to me, I make the following findings of fact relevant to the issues in this claim.[30]The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent in April 2017. In February 2019, upon the business being taken over and Mr Irby being appointed as a director, the Claimant signed the contract which appears in the bundle. The parties agreed at the outset of the hearing that this was the contract which applied to the Claimant’s employment at all material times.[31]During his evidence, in the afternoon of the hearing, Mr Irby alleged for the first time that in fact that the Claimant had been moved onto a different contract at a later date. He said this was a zero hours contract. No explanation was given for why that had not been raised at the outset of the hearing or why it was not put to the Claimant during cross-examination. I raised the possibility of a brief adjournment to obtain that contract but Miss Drablow indicated that that was the only document she had been able to locate in the office. Mr Irby did not suggest that he had a copy of a different contract. No such contract had been disclosed prior to the hearing. Upon further questioning, Mr Irby accepted that he did not know whether the Claimant had in fact been presented with, or had signed a new contract. This evidence significantly undermined Mr Irby’s credibility.[32]I accept that the contract of employment in the agreed bundle of documents is the contract that applied to the Claimant at all material times.[33]The Respondent suggests that that contract is a zero hours contract. The Claimant disputes that.[34]The Claimant’s hours of work were not clearly specified in her contract. Her contract provided for ‘normal hours of work’ between 6.40 and 22.00, seven days a week with night shifts between 22.00 and 7.00. The contract provides that ‘These normal hours of work may be varied to meet the needs of the business’.[35]Although the wording of the contract is not entirely clear, I do not accept that it is a zero hours contract. There is nothing in the contract to suggest that the Respondent was not obliged to offer the Claimant any work or that she was not obliged to accept any work offered to her. The contract suggested an expectation that the Claimant would work six days a week between certain specified hours. Consistent with that, in the six years leading up to May 2023, the Claimant worked for the Respondent six days a week. Between Mondays and Fridays she worked at the very least 12-13 hours a day and at least seven hours a week on Saturdays. Neither party has provided the Claimant’s timesheets or payslips for 2023 so an exact calculation as to the Claimant’s average hours cannot yet be determined. The Claimant has, however, provided timesheets from 2021 which support that conclusion and the Respondent accepted that the Claimant regularly worked at least 40-50 hours a week.[36]I find that the Respondent was contractually obliged to pay the Claimant for work six days a week provided she was ready, willing and able to work. The exact number of hours per day that the Respondent was obliged to pay her for can only be determined by reference to the average hours the Claimant worked at the material time. As I have not been provided with her timesheets or payslips for that period, I am not yet in a position to make a finding on that issue which will have to be determined at a remedy hearing, if it cannot be agreed between the parties.[37]From at least 2022, the Claimant experienced delays in getting paid. She provided copies of text messages between herself and Mr Cook showing that she was required to chase payment on a regular basis. Mr Cook was apologetic in those messages. In April 2023, he told the Claimant that the delays were due to the company growing at a fast rate.[38]On Friday 26 May 2023, the Claimant messaged Mr Cook asking about her wage. The following Monday was a bank holiday and she was concerned about not being able to pay her bills. Mr Cook responded to the Clamant to apologise that the problem was continuing, acknowledging that the payment would be one working day late, and indicating that Mr Irby would be ‘sorting it for the morning, so you will get paid by lunchtime tomorrow’.[39]Mr Irby says that the Claimant was not paid late because in fact her frequency of pay had been unilaterally changed on 22 May 2023 from fortnightly to monthly. He says that the messages in the bundle on 27 and 29 May 2023, when he asked the Claimant to call him, were sent because he wanted to speak to her about this. I do not accept that. The Claimant’s contract provided for payment on a fortnightly basis. There is nothing in writing seeking to amend that. The Claimant had not agreed to change her pay frequency. Mr Cook acknowledges in the messages provided that the Claimant has been paid late. As the finance manager, it can reasonably be assumed that he would have told the Claimant that her wages were not yet due, if that were the case.[40]In light of what she had been told by Mr Cook on 26 May 2023, the Claimant posted in the Respondent’s group WhatsApp chat (which consisted of carers and managers). I have not been shown the message but there appears to be no dispute that the Claimant was telling other carers that Mr Irby was going to resolve the lack of payment the following day, as she had been told by Mr Cook.[41]The Respondent refers to this as a ‘private matter’ and maintains that it should not have been published on the WhatsApp group. The Claimant disagrees. She explained that there were others who were very worried about their wages and that she was simply informing them that she had been told to expect it the following day.[42]The Claimant was asked to take the message down but did not do so. She said in response to Mr Cook that she had posted the message ‘to make sure that I get paid’. She said to Miss Drablow in a message sent at the time that she had done so ‘to make sure he stand (sic.) by his word’. Whilst the Claimant may also have been trying to assist others, I consider that the main motivation for posting that message was to ensure Mr Cook and Mr Irby paid her, as promised.[43]The Claimant was not paid on 27 May 2023. She messaged Mr Cook to query that, asking whether in fact the Respondent was paying employees monthly. That suggests that the Claimant was aware that some employees were being paid monthly, but not that she had agreed to such a change. No response was received to that message.[44]The Claimant also messaged Miss Drablow raising her concerns that she had not been paid. Miss Drablow was in charge of co-ordinating the care rota. Miss Drablow did not respond to suggest that the money was not yet due to the Claimant because her payments had been changed to a monthly frequency. Miss Drablow explained that she would chase it up the best she could with Mr Irby.[45]On Monday 29 May (a bank holiday), three days after the Claimant’s pay was due, the Claimant messaged Miss Drablow to indicate that she was not coming to work that day, or possibly the next day, because she had not been paid. She indicated that she had gone into her overdraft and did not have money to put petrol in her car. She felt that the failure to pay her was personal because she had refused to take down the message in the WhatsApp group. Miss Drablow responded to say that it was within the Claimant’s right to refuse work until she got paid.[46]Mr Irby suggested that the Claimant had left vulnerable workers at risk by not coming to work and had not notified the Respondent of her intentions. The messages to Miss Drablow, however, show that the Claimant had communicated the issue to the person responsible for the rota, albeit not until 29 May 2023.[47]A contract of employment contains obligations owed by both the employee and the employer. One of the most fundamental obligations on the employer is to pay the employee for work undertaken. The Claimant was reliant on the money owed to her. She had been raising concerns about her pay for some time. In the circumstances, Mr Irby’s suggestion that it was the Claimant’s actions which left vulnerable people at potential risk was wholly unjustified. The Claimant needed to be paid money that was owed to her so that she could drive her car and do her job.[48]The Claimant messaged Miss Drablow on 30 May (a Tuesday) to say she was available for work the following day. She was paid around midday that day. No response was received to that message. Later the same day, the Claimant messaged Miss Drablow noting that she had no work for the next day or the day after (Wednesday and Thursday). This was unusual. Over the previous six years, the Claimant consistently had six days of work provided by the Respondent.[49]On 31 May 2023, having still not been allocated any work, the Claimant tried to call the Respondent. She says she also sent text messages but I have not been shown any from that morning.[50]Having not received an answer to her calls, the Claimant went to the Respondent’s office. She was dressed in her uniform and ready to work.[51]Upon arrival at the Respondent’s office, the Claimant was told that she was not allowed entry. She was told by other managers at the office that Mr Irby had told them not to let the Claimant in and that they were not to have anything to do with her. Ms Small, who was also present at the time, witnessed this exchange.[52]In his evidence, for the first time, Mr Irby suggested that the Claimant had been aggressive, abusive and threatening to the managers in the office causing them to call security for assistance and that the Claimant was escorted off the premises. I do not accept that. It is not detailed in Mr Irby’s statement and it was not put to the Claimant or to Ms Small in evidence. I can accept that the Claimant was upset, but that is not surprising given the way in which she was being treated. Mr Irby’s exaggerated evidence on this issue undermines his credibility.[53]The Claimant asked for a copy of her contract and a grievance form, which were provided to her.[54]Upon returning home, the Claimant discovered that the work that had previously been allocated to her for Friday and Saturday had also been removed.[55]Mr Irby was reluctant in evidence to state whether he had in fact taken the Claimant’s work away from her. He was evasive in his answers, suggesting initially that he could not remember. He did, however, ultimately agree that he had removed work from the Claimant on 31 May and 1 June. He says that he removed the Claimant’s work on 31 May because the Claimant had failed to come into work the previous two days, had not communicated her absence, and that he was unsure if she could be relied upon to attend. For the reasons set out above, I do not accept that. The Claimant had informed the rota co-ordinator, Miss Drablow, of her intentions.[56]Mr Irby said he removed the Claimant’s work on 1 June because he wanted her to come into a meeting at the office, but she was refusing to call him to discuss. He referred to the messages sent on 27 and 29 May 2023. The Claimant said she did not see those messages. I do not accept that. I consider that the Claimant did see the messages but did not want to speak to Mr Irby because she just wanted to be paid. She was advised by Miss Drablow to speak to Mr Irby on 27 May and said in reply, ‘I am not phoning no body they know they have not paid us’. The Claimant’s credibility was undermined by the refusal to accept that Mr Irby had tried to contact her.[57]Notwithstanding the Claimant’s failure to call Mr Irby as requested by him, there was no justifiable reason for Mr Irby taking away the Claimant’s work on 1 June. If he had wished to discuss concerns with the Claimant in person, the appropriate way forward would have been to invite her to a meeting in writing, explaining clearly the purpose of the meeting. Punishing the Claimant by removing her work was entirely unjustified. On balance, I consider it likely, as suggested by the Claimant, that Mr Irby was punishing her for refusing to remove her message in the WhatsApp group and then for failing to work.[58]In addition to having her work removed from her, on 31 May 2023, the Claimant had been removed from the WhatsApp chat. Mr Irby said he did this because of the Claimant’s refusal to remove her post. I do not accept that. It does not explain why Mr Irby also removed the Claimant’s access to the app used for managing shifts (etc) and removed the Claimant from the care planner. No explanation was given by Mr Irby for why this was necessary.[59]At some point on the morning of 31 May 2023, after the Clamiant returned from the office, she and Mr Irby spoke by telephone. Mr Irby suggested in his evidence that this phone call took place late at night. I do not accept that. It was not suggested to the Claimant in her evidence. The Claimant has repeatedly and consistently stated that this call took place in the morning.[60]There is a significant degree of dispute between the parties about what was said during this call. The Claimant’s evidence is that she was told by Mr Irby that she was on a zero hour’s contract, that he had taken her hours away, and that he would not tell her when she could start back at work. Mr Irby’s evidence is that he asked the Claimant to attend the office for a meeting and that she refused to do so.[61]I accept that Mr Irby told the Claimant she was on a zero hours contract. That is supported by the messages the Claimant sent after the call. It is also supported by Mr Irby’s assertion at the hearing about the Claimant’s alleged new contract (which he subsequently withdrew). I also accept that Mr Irby told the Claimant he had taken her hours away and that he would not confirm to her when she could return to work. That is consistent with the fact that the Claimant’s work was taken away and with my findings below that Mr Irby was responsible for that.[62]I am not satisfied that Mr Irby asked the Claimant to attend the office for a meeting and that she refused to do so. He made no reference to such a request in his responses to the Claimant’s messages, asking her simply to write to him by email only. The Claimant was anxious to resolve the issue. She had already tried to attend the Respondent’s offices. Had an offer of a meeting been made to her, it is likely she would have taken it.[63]The Claimant messaged Mr Irby later on 31 May 2023 asking him what was going on and reiterating that she was not on a zero hours contract. Mr Irby did not respond in any detail, simply stating ‘please send me an email only’.[64]Later the same day, the Claimant messaged Mr Irby saying ‘so what you are saying until I agree with you concerning my contract I can not get any work because I am not saved (sic.) and I am not suspended so what am I if I am not sack or suspended I have read my contract it is legally binding it is not a zero hour contract you can not tell me how long I am going to be off work’. Mr Irby did not respond to that message.[65]Mr Irby did not send the Claimant a letter or an email following this interaction. I find that a surprising omission if, as Mr Irby says, he was just trying to get the Claimant to engage and was expecting her to return to work. I consider it more likely that Mr Irby was hopeful that the Claimant would not return to work.[66]Mr Irby says that, thereafter, the Respondent attempted to contact the Claimant at least one a week to offer her work. I do not accept that. I accept the Claimant’s evidence that she received no response to her message on 31 May asking ‘what am I if I am not sack or suspended…’. It is clear from the messages disclosed by the Respondent that Mr Irby blocked the Claimant’s number on the evening of 31 May (albeit he must have unblocked her at a later date in order to contact her in August 2023). There are no messages from Mr Irby in June or July 2023. Mr Irby has not produced any phone records to show that calls were placed to the Claimant during that period. He says that such messages would not appear on his phone but he has not produced a print out of calls that were placed. In any event (and even if such a printout cannot be obtained), had Mr Irby been trying to contact the Claimant throughout June and July unsuccessfully as he claims, it is reasonable to expect that he would have sent an email or letter to her as a follow up. The failure to do so undermines his claim that he was trying to contact her. As above, I consider that it more likely that he was hoping the Claimant would leave.[67]On 16 June 2023, the Claimant sent a grievance to the Respondent. Although the emails enclosing that grievance have not been produced, I accept the Claimant’s evidence that it was sent twice to the Respondent. It is consistent with her request for a grievance form on 31 May 2023 and references advice from Acas to lodge the grievance and give the Respondent two weeks to respond.[68]Within the grievance, the Claimant reiterated her position that she was not on a zero hours’ contract.[69]No response was received to that grievance. On balance, I find that that was a deliberate decision by the Respondent.[70]Having heard nothing from the Respondent, the Claimant started looking for alternative employment.[71]On 3 August 2023, having had no contact with her since 31 May 2023, Mr Irby sent the Claimant a message asking if she was available for work that week. On 10 August 2023, Mr Irby sent the Claimant another message indicating that he had tried to call her ‘again’ a number of times this week and asking if she was available for work. On 22 August 2023, Mr Irby sent the Claimant another message asking if she was available and stating that she had ignored communication from the Respondent since early June. Mr Irby stated in his message that the Respondent had been constantly calling and messaging her. As set out above, I do not accept that.[72]The Claimant did not respond to those messages in August. I find that she was not ready and willing to work by that point.[73]The Claimant commenced new employment on 25 September 2023.[74]Although it is not necessary to determine the exact date of termination of the Claimant’s employment, it must have been by 19 January 2024 at the latest. By that point, the Claimant had not worked for the Respondent for some time, had not contacted the Respondent asking for work for some months, had not been offered work for some time, was working elsewhere, and had been issued with a P45.
Conclusions
[75]Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I do not accept that the Claimant was dismissed on 31 May 2023, as alleged. In reaching that decision I note that, whilst the Claimant’s work was taken away from her and she was removed from the group WhatsApp chat, the app and the care planner, she did not clearly understand herself to be dismissed at that point. The Respondent’s failure to respond to her grievance does not change that. Given Mr Irby’s comments, as recorded by the Claimant in messages, the reasonable observer would understand not that the Claimant had been dismissed but that the Respondent was wrongly insisting that she was on a zero hours contract, that it was not under an obligation to provide her with work, and that it was not going to do so at that time.[76]Such behaviour plainly amounts, I find, to a fundamental breach of contract which would have entitled the Claimant to resign and bring a complaint of constructive dismissal. She did not, however, do so.[77]On that basis, the Claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal is not well founded and must be dismissed. Unauthorised deductions from wages[78]The Claimant was last paid for work on 27 May 2023. 28 May 2023 was a Sunday. She was not due to work on that day.[79]The Claimant was next due to work on Monday 29 May 2023. She was willing and ready to work that day but could not do so because she had not been paid and therefore could not get to work (or carry out her work, which required driving) as she could not afford to put petrol in her car. The same applied for Tuesday 30 May 2023.[80]The Claimant was ready and willing to work on 29-30 May 2023 but unable to do so as a result of the Respondent’s failure to pay her. She was contractually entitled to be paid for those days. The Respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from her wages in respect of those two days. The exact amount due to the Claimant for those days should be calculated by reference to the 12-week formula set out above.[81]The Claimant was also ready and willing to work on 31 May 2023 and was contractually entitled to be paid that day. Her work was taken away from her unjustifiably.[82]The Claimant did not identify the point at which she was no longer ready and willing to work. She accepted, however, that Mr Irby did contact her on 2 August 2023 offering her work and that she did not respond. She said he only did this because he was contacted by a potential new employer for a reference. Irrespective of his motivations, work was offered on that date and not taken by the Claimant.[83]In the circumstances, I find that the Claimant was ready and willing to work between 31 May 2023 and 2 August 2023 (inclusive), a total of 64 days.[84]The Respondent made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s wages for 66 days (or 9.4 weeks) in total.[85]There will be a 25% uplift on that amount to account for the Respondent’s complete failure to deal with the Claimant appropriately when she tried to enquire about her status and entitlement to work and when she lodged a formal grievance.[86]As I have not upheld the Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal, her claims for unpaid holiday pay and notice pay fail.[87]The Claimant’s claim for unpaid pension contributions must also fail. Pension contributions do not fall within the definition of wages (Somerset County Council v Chambers EAT 0417/12). S.27(1)(a) ERA 1996 covers sums payable to the worker in connection with the worker’s employment, not contributions paid to a pension provider on the worker’s behalf.[88]Unless the parties can agree the sums owed to the Claimant for 66 days unpaid wages, together with an uplift on any amount owed of 25%, a remedy hearing will be listed.