M A Salas Garcia v Amiable People Ltd T/a Blossom Home Care: 8001796/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No 8001796/2025
Between
M. A. Salas GarciaClaimantAmiable People Limited t/a Blossom Home CareRespondent
Before
Employment Judge McFatridgeMs Douglass for respondentConsultant for respondentDate 17 February 2026
JUDGMENT
[1]The respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against the claimant on grounds of religion. The claim of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief is dismissed.[2]The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claim of unlawful deduction of wages in respect of the failure by the respondent to pay the claimant for induction training as that claim was submitted out of time. The claim is dismissed.[3]The claimant’s remaining claims of unlawful deduction of wages are not well-founded and are dismissed.[4]The claimant’s claim that at the time of raising his claim the respondent was in breach of their duty to provide him with particulars of employment in terms of section 1 and section 4A of the Employment Rights Act is not well-founded and is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]The claimant submitted a claim to the Tribunal in which he claimed that he had been unfairly constructively dismissed, that he had suffered unlawful discrimination on grounds of religious belief, that he had suffered unlawful deductions of wages and that the respondent had failed to provide him with written particulars of employment. He also made a whistleblowing claim although the exact nature of this was not set out. The respondent submitted a response in which they denied the claims. It was their position that the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service to make a claim of unfair constructive dismissal. It was their position that the discrimination claim and the claim for unlawful deduction of wages was time barred and that they had provided the claimant with written particulars of employment. They noted that the whistleblowing claim could not be responded to as the nature of this was unclear. A preliminary hearing was held following which the claims of unfair constructive dismissal and whistleblowing were dismissed. The remaining claims were set out in paragraph 33-38 of the Note produced by Employment Judge McCluskey on 17 October 2025 following that hearing. A final hearing took place over three days by CVP on 13, 14, 15 January 2026. The claimant gave evidence on his own behalf. Josephine Iba the respondent’s Manager and Innocent Iba the respondent’s Managing Director gave evidence on their behalf. The claimant was assisted giving his evidence by an interpreter. A joint bundle of productions was lodged for the hearing which is referred to in the judgment below by page number. On the basis of the evidence and the productions I found the following matters relevant to the claim to be proved or agreed. Findings in fact[2]The respondent is a franchisee of Blossom Home Care and trades under the name of Blossom Home Care. It provides domiciliary care services to vulnerable adults in their own homes. They employ carers who visit clients for set periods throughout the day over a seven day week. Generally, they are contracted by a local authority to provide these services. The company commenced trading in summer/autumn 2024 and had around 17 employees. The claimant comes from Mexico where he worked as a surgeon. He applied for a post with the respondent as an Employment Care and Support Worker. His role was to deliver hands-on care to individuals who were clients of the respondent in their own homes. This would involve assisting them with showering and daily living according to a care plan which was negotiated with the local authority.[3]The claimant’s employment commenced on 29 October 2024. Prior to commencing his employment the respondent advised the claimant that he would require to carry out induction training. The claimant was advised that this would be unpaid. The induction training comprised three modules which overall took ten and a half hours. One of the modules involved the claimant being taught how to use the carer’s app which is central to the respondent’s business. Carers are required to download this app and it has a number of uses. Its main use is that it tracks the number of hours that the carer works with a client. When the carer visits the client’s home they use the app to read a barcode which is kept on documentation which remains in the client’s home. This then starts the clock running. They scan the barcode again when they leave. The app is used by them to make any handover notes which may be required or other notes of what has happened during the visit. The app then automatically calculates the amount of time which the carer is entitled to be paid for the visit and also automatically calculates the travelling time which the carer is paid in respect of the time taken to travel to and from and between jobs.[4]Work is allocated to carers using the app and the app is what they are required to use to find out the details they require in respect of the client and the client’s care plan. The app also contains a section which allows them to check any documentation in respect of their employment including their statement of terms and conditions of employment and their pay slips together with all of the company’s policies. The claimant was fully trained in the operation of this app during his induction training. During the training it was made clear that he would be paid for work as per the timings set out on the app. There was no provision for the carer to be paid for any work done in any other way and there was absolutely no requirement for a carer to carry out any work which would not be covered by the work assigned to him through the app.[5]On joining the firm the claimant was provided with a document entitled Principal Statement of Main Terms and Conditions of Care and Support. The claimant was asked to sign a copy of this which he was shown on an iPad which belonged to Innocent Iba the Managing Director of the company who had dealt with the recruitment of the claimant. The claimant duly signed this document. A copy of the document was lodged (page 61- 70). The claimant’s signature is on the last page. It confirms that the claimant was entitled to be paid at the rate of £12.50 per hour and that he would be paid travel expenses of 35p per mile if using a vehicle for work.[6]At his induction training the claimant was advised that he had access to an online learning tool known as Curve Learning. This contained various modules. It was not compulsory for the claimant to complete these modules and the claimant was advised that they were a resource which would be available to him. The claimant in fact completed all 38 modules prior to commencing employment on 29 October. Each module took him around 15 minutes. The claimant did this although it was not part of his contract of employment to do so and he was specifically told that it was something which was entirely voluntary.[7]The claimant was also advised that the respondent’s staff had established a WhatsApp group which could be used for communication between members of staff and also between members of staff and management. It was not in any way compulsory for members of staff to join this group. It was not necessary for members of staff to be a member of the group in order to obtain communications from management. All communication could be done through the app or if necessary by telephone or email.[8]As is normal practice in the industry the respondent tries to ensure that there is continuity of care provided to their clients. This means that each client is designated a principal care worker. This is the care worker who will generally be carrying out care for that client.[9]Shortly after the claimant commenced his employment he was introduced to one of the individuals he would be caring for. This individual’s family lived elsewhere and, as is the respondent’s general practice, they arranged for the claimant to sit in on the initial meeting which took place between Josephine Iba the respondent’s Care Manager and the client’s family. The meeting took place during the hours that the claimant was rostered to work on the app and the claimant was paid for the time during which he attended this meeting.[10]Following the meeting the claimant produced an extremely detailed report which he sent to Josephine Iba. Ms Iba advised the claimant that there was absolutely no requirement on him to produce such a report. This meeting and the production of the report took place around 14 November 2024.[11]During the first few weeks of the claimant’s employment there were a couple of teething issues. The claimant contacted Ms Iba to advise that he had been telephoning his client and the client’s family. Ms Iba told him in a WhatsApp message that this was not something that he should be doing. He was to leave all client contact to Ms Iba. She said “You should not be bypassing the office and contacting the client’s family directly marco. I will get in touch with the family if you can leave that with me. Thanks” (page 113) There was also an issue where immediately on starting work the claimant had produced a document which was basically setting out his own qualifications and history to give to the client he was to be working with. The claimant had advised Mr Iba in general terms of his intention to do this in a WhatsApp message sent on 31 October (page 116). However Mr Iba had not opened this message and had not seen it and it had not registered with him at the time. In early December Ms Iba was visiting one of the clients for whom the claimant provided care and came across a document which the claimant had apparently provided. The document is lodged (page 114). It contains a photograph of the claimant and a brief biography. It said that the client should not hesitate to reach out and that Mr Garcia was committed to providing a service day or night, seven days a week. He provided his own personal telephone number. Ms Iba was extremely shocked to see this. She felt that the provision of the telephone number indicated that the claimant was effectively trying to solicit additional personal work from the clients. She sent a message to the claimant on or about 8 December. The claimant responded that he felt that he had Mr Iba’s consent. Ms Iba then sent a message to him on 8 December stating “Your message wasn’t quite clear, you did not specify that you had provided them with your contact and the option of employing you outside of your work hours with blossom. It is not acceptable as we spend a lot of money and work very hard to get our clients.” ][12]On 12 December one of the clients for whom the claimant was principal carer was having a review meeting. This was a meeting between Josephine Iba and a representative of the council. The respondent’s general practice was to try to have the principal carer also sit in for at least a part of these meetings so that they could answer any questions about how the care package was going. The claimant duly attended the meeting with Ms Iba and a representative of the council. The meeting took place during the period the claimant was rostered to work with that particular care user and the claimant was paid for this at his normal rate. After this meeting the claimant once again produced a written report. Ms Iba again told him there was no need for him to do this. The claimant was never asked to produce such a report. The claimant had no standing to produce such a report and the report was of absolutely no use to the respondent in their business.[13]In or about December 2024 the respondent’s Care Manager left and a new Care Manager was appointed. Shortly after that the respondent decided that as the business was growing it would be helpful for them to appoint someone to the role of Care Co-ordinator. The claimant applied and was invited for interview which took place on 20 January.[14]The position of Care Co-ordinator was one where the holder required to hold a qualification in Social Care at level SVQ 6 or higher. The claimant advised the respondent that he had completed an HNC in Health and Social Care which was equivalent to level 6. This was in fact incorrect as the claimant still required to complete two more semesters to be given the level 6 qualification. The respondent, unaware that the claimant did not hold the correct qualification, decided to offer the claimant the job and arranged for their HR company to produce a contract of employment which was sent to the claimant and to the respondent and duly signed by them. This contract was lodged (pages 71-86). The contract provided that the claimant would be employed in the new role of Care Co-ordinator with effect from 1 February 2025. It stated that his salary would be £25,000 per annum on the basis of a 40 hour week.[15]On or about 21 January the claimant was working with one of his clients when Josephine Iba came to the property. She told the claimant that she was going to be having a short meeting with the key worker from the council in respect of this individual and since the claimant was principal carer it would be helpful if he could accompany her to the meeting. The claimant and Ms Iba then left and went to the meeting which took place at Florence Court. The claimant was in attendance at the meeting for around 15-20 minutes. The claimant was paid for his time since this was time logged against that particular client. Once again the claimant produced a report after this meeting which he forwarded to Ms Iba and Ms Iba once again advised him this was entirely unnecessary and pointless. There was absolutely no requirement for the claimant to be producing reports.[16]Towards the end of January the respondent’s management received a report to the effect that the claimant had not been tending to one particular client at the times that he was supposed to. The respondent was concerned that the claimant may have found a way of circumventing the controls in the app and using the app to say that he had been with a service user when he had not. The claimant was asked to come in and meet with the respondent’s manager on 31 January.[17]Mr Iba found out about this meeting and asked if the claimant could see him after he had spoken to his manager. It had been Mr Iba’s intention, as was his usual practice, to do a check on the claimant’s actual qualifications before he started work as a Care Co-ordinator. This was something which the respondent required to do as part of due diligence. The claimant met with Mr Iba and during the course of the meeting he admitted to Mr Iba that he did not in fact have Level 6 NVQ as he had stated. The claimant set out exactly what his current situation was in respect of qualifications. Mr Iba and the claimant both Googled this and it was clear that the claimant currently had qualifications which were at level 2 or 3. The claimant advised Mr Iba that he required to complete another two semesters before he would have the equivalent of SVQ level 6. He also told Mr Iba that he was intending to sit the examinations which would entitle him to practice in the UK as a GP. Mr Iba explained to the claimant that in the circumstances the offer of the job of Care Co-ordinator would require to be rescinded. The claimant said he fully understood that.[18]Mr Iba took notes during the meeting and these notes were lodged (pages 98-99). I consider these handwritten notes to be an accurate (but not verbatim) account of what took place at the meeting.[19]On 4 February 2025 the respondent sent an email to the claimant confirming the withdrawal of the Care Co-ordinator role. This was lodged (page 100). The email stated “Dear Marco, Following our meeting on Friday, January 31, 2025, I write to formally notify you of the withdrawal of the stated offer and contract for the position of care coordinator. We are sorry for the inconvenience this might have caused you, the position requires that the candidate should possess SVQ 3 at SCQF level 7. This is a regulatory requirement that we cannot circumvent. You are a valuable member of our team and should you have the pre-requisite qualifications, we will consider your application on its merit when the position opens up again. Thank you for your understanding and kind regards.”[20]Following the meeting on 31 January the claimant returned to his carer role. He did not carry out any of the tasks which a Care Co-ordinator would carry out. A Care Co-ordinator would require to have access to the respondent’s systems to co-ordinate the work of carers. The claimant never had this access.[21]During the period of his employment the claimant sent and received various WhatsApp messages. The WhatsApp messages were lodged and are contained at pages 217-247.[22]The claimant’s pay slips were lodged (pages 129-136). The claimant was paid in full for all the hours worked (including travelling time) as shown in the app as per his contract of employment.[23]When the claimant commenced employment the respondent became aware that the claimant’s standard of spoken English was not good. The claimant told Ms Iba that he was concerned about this particularly as he felt that this would hold back his attempts to eventually qualify as a GP in the UK.[24]Ms Iba and her husband attend a church in George Street, Aberdeen. They were aware that some of the church members were part of an organisation called FriendSpeak which provided tuition in spoken English usually to recent immigrants who wish to improve their skills. Ms Iba had seen a flyer for the organisation called “FriendSpeak” lying about her church. A copy of the flyer was lodged (page 91). The flyer provides contact information and then says “FriendSpeak Helping others improve their English language skills FREE Conversational English Lessons Creating Life-Changing Conversations Using the Word of God One-on-one instruction Learn at your own pace Friendly, casual atmosphere Internationally known programme” Ms Iba knew nothing at all about the course apart from this and the fact that there was someone called David who was the person who did it.[25]Ms Iba told the claimant this and the claimant said he was very interested in attending since this seemed to be exactly what he needed. She suggested that he come along after church and she could introduce him to David. There was an exchange of messages which took place between the claimant and Ms Iba on 17 November (page 89). It went Ms Iba: – “Hi Marco I won’t be in church today as my baby isn’t feeling well but Innocent and my other sons will be there. He will introduce you to David.” Claimant: – “Ok thanks What time is the best time to see David” Ms Iba: - “Service starts at 11 and ends about 12ish. So you can see him at the end of service about 12 pm” Claimant:- “Perfect” Claimant:- “Thanks” Claimant (at 1:14pm):- “I met David and a lot of people nice there, thanks for helping me” Apart from arranging this meeting neither Ms Iba nor Mr Iba nor anyone from the respondent had any further involvement in the matter. They were unaware as to whether the claimant was attending FriendSpeak or not. They were unaware of whether or not the claimant attended church apart from going along after the service on 18 November.[26]After these proceedings were commenced they contacted David Murray who provided a document lodged at page 118 summarising his interactions with the claimant and providing copies of various WhatsApp messages which he had exchanged with the claimant. He confirmed that he met with the claimant and he went on to say “I explained how Friendspeak would normally work but in light of our conversation, I told him that his English was so good, that in my opinion, Friendspeak would not be of much benefit to him. His reaction was that he was certain it would be of benefit and would help him with his conversational English, so I said I’d be happy to meet to give it a go. When we sat down to have that first discussion using the Friendspeak book, we chatted and worked through the first lesson and seemed to get on very well. At the end of that session, I asked if he wanted to meet again since it was clear to me that he was already fluent in English but Marco said he’d found it very helpful and would want to meet again so arrangements were made. Marco contacted me via WhatsApp on the day of the scheduled meeting to say he was unable to attend. From then the short WhatsApp chain of messages copied below gives the full record of our communications.” This shows that the claimant cancelled the meeting due to take place on 4 December. He then on 6 December suggested to Mr Murray that “May be other Sunday after the workshop service may be the best for you”. Mr Murray responded “Wednesday at 6.00 would work for me if that would suit you.” The claimant then agreed to meet Wednesday at 6.00. Mr Murray contacted him on Wednesday 11 December to check and the claimant said he was still planning to meet at 6.00pm. On 18 December the following week Mr Murray contacted the claimant to ask if he would be attending and the claimant responded saying “I can’t go today”. Mr Murray responded saying “OK. We can rearrange to suit your schedule”. On the balance of probabilities it would appear the claimant attended the Wednesday session with Mr Murray after the initial meeting on 18 November when he was introduced to him. The claimant’s position at the hearing was that although he is a Christian being a member of the Church of Latter-day Saints he found the use of various Bible stories in the teaching materials provided for FriendSpeak to be uncomfortable and that was the reason he did not go back. The claimant never raised this issue either with Mr Murray or with the respondent at any time prior to raising these proceedings.[27]In or about January 2025 the claimant contacted Citizens Advice Bureau to discuss his work situation and received advice from them. In May 2025 the claimant resigned. Shortly prior to that he had asked the respondent for a written copy of his terms and conditions which was sent to him by email. Matters arising from the evidence[28]I found both Mr and Mrs Iba to be credible and reliable witnesses. They were clearly trying to assist the Tribunal by giving truthful evidence and were careful to ensure that they only gave evidence of matters where they had direct knowledge. My findings in fact generally follow their evidence save that it was Ms Iba’s position that when she checked the Curve Learning statistics she received a print-out which was lodged at page 249 which indicated that as at February 2025 the claimant had only completed 16 out of 38 modules. The claimant referred to another document at page 248 which was from his personal record on the app which showed each module as having been completed. I decided that on the balance of probabilities I preferred the evidence contained in the document at page 248 which accorded with the claimant’s own position which was that he had completed all modules. Ms Iba could really only give evidence about what the system told her at page 249 since she had no personal knowledge. The matter is in any event academic since I entirely accepted Ms Iba’s evidence that the Curve Learning was entirely voluntary and that the respondent did not require the claimant to complete this as part of his contract of employment nor was there any provision in his contract saying that he would be paid for the time taken to complete these modules.[29]The claimant was a much less impressive witness and regretfully I have to say that I did not find his evidence to be reliable at all. The claimant professed himself unable to remember specific dates and when he did commit himself he would then contradict himself a few minutes later. With regard to the FriendSpeak lessons his initial position was that he had been discriminated against by being told that if he did not continue to attend the respondent’s church and attend FriendSpeak then his employment would suffer. He said that his promotion would be taken away. It was pointed out to him that at the time he says that he was attending FriendSpeak his promotion had not been discussed. The claimant’s position then was that in some way he had been considered for a manager’s job but that this has not proceeded because he did not have the necessary qualification. There is no documentation at all in respect of the offer of a management job and the respondent denied that this was the case. It is clear that the claimant did not have the required qualifications to be a Social Care Manager. Some considerable time was spent by the respondent’s agent in ascertaining exactly when it was that the claimant stated that he had attended church and had attended the FriendSpeak lessons. The claimant’s position altered many times during the course of his cross examination. I have made my findings in fact based essentially on the WhatsApp messages exchanged with David which the claimant confirmed were an accurate record of the exchange. During cross examination the claimant accepted that at no time had he been specifically told by the respondent that he had to attend church. He said it was just a feeling he had. He could not explain why it was that given he had stopped attending church he had still been promoted. He did not provide any evidence of having discussed the question of his attending or not attending church with either Mr or Mrs Iba or anyone from the respondent. He said that he had seen Mr Iba at church, that he had seen Ms Iba at church on one or two occasions but could not be pinned down as to when this was and I preferred the evidence of Mr and Mrs Iba that they had not seen him.[30]With regard to the Care Co-ordinator post the claimant’s position in examination in chief was that he had started working as a Care Coordinator from 1 February and that he had not received the email of 4 February until around a month later. Later on in his evidence he suggested that it had initially gone into his spam folder. When being questioned by me I noted that the email of 4 February refers to a meeting having taken place on 31 January. He completely denied that any meeting had taken place with Mr Iba on 31 January but said that he had had a meeting with the manager to discuss a particular client. During cross examination he accepted that there had been a meeting with Mr Iba on 31 January. He did so whilst he was criticising the notes produced at pages 98-99 on the basis that he had not seen Mr Iba taking any notes at the meeting. He repeated his position however that the meeting had not been about the offer of the care co-ordinator role being withdrawn. At points whilst trying to explain his position his evidence became extremely vague and contradictory and he refused to be pinned down. Although he was giving evidence through an interpreter it appeared to me to be quite clear that he fully understood the questions and was deliberately trying to obfuscate. The claimant’s position in evidence was that the induction training had lasted three days. It was clear from Ms Iba’s evidence and the relevant documentation lodged at page 248 that it lasted ten and a half hours. The claimant’s position was that he had not been paid for attending the various meetings or producing the reports. He did not dispute that he had never been asked to produce the reports. He did not provide any serious evidence or argument to the effect that he had not been paid for the time these meetings had taken place. His position was that after 1 February he was entitled to be paid for all the hours he worked at the rate of pay of a Care Co-ordinator. For some reason he appeared to believe that this was £25 per hour whilst the contract which he signed clearly states that the annual salary is £25,000 which is an hourly rate of pay considerably less than this.[31]I have to say that quite apart from being an unimpressive witness who appeared to have little regard to accuracy it did appear to me at times that the claimant was deliberately trying to mislead the Tribunal in order to assist his claim. I therefore was not prepared to accept his evidence save where it accorded with the contemporary records.
Issues
[32]At the commencement of the hearing both parties confirmed that the issues were as set out in paragraph 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the PH Note of 17 October 2025. During the course of the hearing the claimant’s evidence tended to give different dates for various events he wished to refer to from the date set out in the Note. However, given the circumstances I shall proceed on the basis of the dates given in evidence by the claimant. Discussion and decision[33]Both parties made submissions. Rather than set these out at length I shall deal with these where appropriate in the discussion below. I shall deal with each of the heads of claim in turn. Religious discrimination[34]The issues as set out by the claimant at the preliminary hearing were that on 8, 10 and 18 December 2024 Josephine Iba forced the claimant to attend a religious meeting at a Christian church located at 393 George Street, Edinburgh with David Murray of FriendSpeak. It is alleged that on 4 February 2025 Innocent Iba denied the claimant promotion. The claimant claimed that these incidents amounted to direct discrimination and harassment.[35]In deciding whether or not discrimination occurred I am required to apply the reverse burden of proof provisions set out in the Equality Act. The first step requires me to make findings in fact from which discrimination could be inferred. In this initial stage I am required to take account of all of the evidence before me. If I am satisfied at this stage that discrimination could have taken place. I am then required to look to the respondent to see whether they have provided a non-discriminatory explanation for this treatment.[36]In this case even on the basis of the claimant’s own eventual evidence, confused as it was, there was really nothing to suggest that discrimination had taken place. It is quite clear that the respondent’s narrative is correct. The claimant had poor spoken English. Ms Iba in an effort to be helpful told him about FriendSpeak. The claimant was grateful for this introduction at the time. He met with the language teacher David Murray on two occasions and then for whatever reasons stopped going. I am not convinced that he actually attended church for a religious service at all but if he did, then this was not in any way at the suggestion of the respondent. There was absolutely no evidence that Ms Iba “forced him” to attend a religious meeting. His own evidence taken at its highest that he felt under a degree of compulsion but he could not point to any word or deed of Ms Iba’s which led him to that view. I was satisfied on the evidence that Mr and Mrs Iba had no interest in whether or not he attended church and were entirely unaware as to what was happening between him and FriendSpeak. They had offered and facilitated the introduction to Mr Murray as a favour and it is a complete distortion of the truth to suggest that any inference of religious discrimination could be drawn from what happened in this case. The claim for religious discrimination therefore falls. Unlawful deductions[37]As with all of his evidence the claimant’s evidence in respect of unlawful deductions was somewhat confused and at times contradictory. What I understood his position to be was that he had suffered unlawful deductions in respect of a number of different matters. I will set out my understanding below. 1. He was not paid for the ten and a half hours he spent prior to his contract starting for attending the compulsory induction courses. He said this actually took three days) 2. He was not paid for carrying out the Curve Learning that he completed 38 online modules each taking around 15 minutes. 3. He was not paid for attending various meetings involving the clients he was principal carer for. 4. He was not paid for producing reports of these meetings. 5. He was not paid for sending and reading WhatsApp messages. 6. He was entitled to be paid at the rate of £25 per hour for work done after 1 February since he had a contract stating that he was Care Coordinator which he believed entitled him to be paid £25 per hour. Having considered the evidence it is clear that there is absolutely no factual basis for any of these propositions in terms of the claimant’s contract of employment.[38]It is quite clear that the claimant was being paid as a Carer and that there was as a rule no requirement for him to attend meetings or make reports. When the claimant did attend a meeting he did so during the time he would otherwise be doing hands-on care for that claimant and I was prepared to accept Ms Iba’s position that he was paid at the carer rate for those meetings. Incidentally I also accepted Ms Iba’s evidence that his presence was for a fairly short time at each meeting and did not accept the claimant’s position where in one case he said he had attended a meeting for eight hours. I agreed with Ms Iba that this would have been quite bizarre. With regard to the WhatsApp messages I noted that the claimant’s suggestion that reading three WhatsApp messages would take him an hour and should therefore entitle him to one hour’s pay entirely unsupported by evidence. In any event, I accepted Ms Iba’s position that membership of the WhatsApp group was entirely voluntary and that the claimant had no entitlement to be paid for engaging with the WhatsApp group in terms of his Contract of Employment.[39]With regard to the Curve Learning it was clear that this was voluntary and once again the claimant had no entitlement to be paid for this in respect of his contract of employment.[40]I am entirely satisfied that all of the foregoing claims for unlawful deduction of wages are not at all well-founded and ought to be dismissed. The claimant appears to have based his claim on what he thought he would like his contract to be rather than what it actually was. It is clear that the claimant was clearly told during his induction that he would be paid for hours worked and logged on the app together with travel time and this was what he was paid. There was no obligation for the claimant to be paid for anything more than this.[41]With regard to the claim for payment for the ten and a half hours spent attending the induction prior to the contract commencing on 29 October the position is more nuanced. The position of the respondent’s representative was that this work was carried out prior to the contract commencing and therefore the claimant could not be entitled to payment in terms of his contract. I agree with that proposition if one is looking solely at the contract itself as a source of rights.[42]The case of Ms I Opalkova v Acquire Care Ltd UKEAT/0209/20 makes it clear however that in such cases that may not be the end of the story. In that case the claimant was employed by the respondent to provide home based care to its clients and claimed that she was entitled to be paid the national minimum wage in respect of her time spent attending induction training. I should say at this point that the case is not directly on all fours with the present situation since the claimant’s position was that he was entitled to be paid his contractual rate for these hours at £12.50 per hour rather than the rate of the national minimum wage which was of £11.31 per hour. In the Opalkova case Lord Justice Auerbach stated that in such a situation the tribunal should be careful to look at the terms of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Section 1 of that Act sets out the qualification for workers to be paid at least the national minimum wage. A person qualifies for the national minimum wage if he is an individual who is a worker or alternatively someone who “is working, or ordinarily works, in the United Kingdom under his contract”. In the Opalkova case it was suggested that the Employment Tribunal had fallen into error in that whilst they had decided that the claimant was not a worker on the basis that she had not yet started her duties as her contract had not commenced, the tribunal should first have considered whether she was by the time she started the training an individual who qualified as a worker in terms of section 54 of the 1998 Act. In my view therefore before I could come to a final decision on the issue of whether or not the claimant was entitled to be paid for the ten and a half hours worked for induction training (albeit at the rate of the national minimum wage) I would require to make a finding as to whether at the time the training was completed the claimant was a worker in terms of section 54 of the National Minimum Wage Act. Section 54 states at sub-paragraph (3) “In this Act ‘worker’ (except in the phrases ‘agency worker’ and ‘home worker’) means an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under)—(a) a contract of employment; or(b) any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual”.[43]In the Opalkova case it is clear from the report of the EAT that the claimant in that case had provided fairly detailed information as to the factual matrix surrounding her attendance at the induction training. I had no such evidence in this case. Both the claimant and Ms Iba were agreed in their evidence that the induction training was compulsory. There is no date on the Contract of Employment at page 61 saying when it was signed nor in fact is there any evidence of the precise date the claimant carried out the induction training. Given that the burden of proof is on the claimant I am in some difficulty but at the end of the day I consider that the weight of the evidence both from Ms Iba and the claimant would suggest that at the time the claimant was attending his induction he was working on the basis of some kind of contract with the respondent albeit by that stage it may not have been reduced to writing. The contract was that he was going to be offered the job as a Carer but as a pre-condition of taking up that job he would require to attend the compulsory induction training. On that basis I am therefore of the view that the claimant probably ought to have been paid for the induction training at the rate of the national minimum wage. That having been said however I do not consider that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make an order that the claimant to be paid this amount as an unlawful deduction of wages.[44]The effect of the national minimum wage legislation is that it adds an implied term to every contract of employment that the employee will be paid at not less than the rate of the minimum wage. If the claimant was entitled to be paid minimum wage then in my view his claim for this amount is a claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to the effect that his right not to suffer unauthorised deductions has been infringed. The time limit for making such a claim is contained in section 23 of the Employment Rights Act which provides at paragraph 23(2) “(2) Subject to subsection (4), an employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented before the end of the period of three months beginning with—(a) in the case of a complaint relating to a deduction by the employer, the date of payment of the wages from which the deduction was made, or(b) in the case of a complaint relating to a payment received by the employer, the date when the payment was received. (3) Where a complaint is brought under this section in respect of— (a) a series of deductions or payments, or (b) a number of payments falling within subsection (1)(d) and made in pursuance of demands for payment subject to the same limit under section 21(1) but received by the employer on different dates, the references in subsection (2) to the deduction or payment are to the last deduction or payment in the series or to the last of the payments so received. …. (4) Where the employment tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for a complaint under this section to be presented before the end of the relevant period of three months, the tribunal may consider the complaint if it is presented within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable.” In this case it appears to me that if, as I have found to be the case, the claimant was entitled to be paid for attending the induction training at the rate of the national minimum wage then this payment ought to have been made with his pay at the end of November 2024. The three month period during which the claimant would require to commence early conciliation would therefore terminate on 29 February 2025. Early conciliation was not commenced until 14 May 2025. The claim was therefore submitted outwith that three month period.[45]The issue of time limits had been raised by the respondent in their initial ET3 and it is noteworthy that the Tribunal at the preliminary hearing specifically raised time limits as being an issue in this case. The claimant did not say anything about time limits during his evidence. I specifically asked him whether there were any matters which he wished to bring to my attention in relation to any failure to bring a claim within the relevant time limits. He confirmed that he had started seeing CAB in order to obtain advice in relation to his employment in January or February 2025. The only answer he could give as to why he had not raised a claim earlier was in relation to his poor command of English. At the end of the day I did not consider that the claimant had come close to demonstrating that it had not been reasonably practicable for him to lodge his claim or at least commence early conciliation before 28 February. I accept that the limitations in his spoken English may have made things difficult but it is clear that he was able to conduct correspondence in English with little difficulty. In addition he had the benefit of advice from CAB from January onwards, and if appropriate there was really absolutely nothing to prevent the claim being lodged in February.[46]For the reasons given above I do not consider that the deduction could be viewed as a series of deductions. The claim is quite specifically for one thing. It ought to have been paid at the end of November and it was not. The other alleged deductions which never happened are in respect of entirely different matters. For these reasons I consider that the claimant’s claim in respect of the payment for induction training is time barred and as a result the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make an award. The respondent may however wish to consider their systems in the matter and my view that in future cases employees are likely to be found to be entitled to payment at the rate of the national minimum wage for attending compulsory induction training.[47]Although the issue of the claim of a failure to provide Terms and Conditions of Employment is moot given that I have not made a finding in the claimant’s favour in respect of any other matter it is my view on the basis of the evidence that the respondent was not in breach of their duty to provide such particulars. The claimant was shown a copy and signed it on Mr Iba’s tablet. He then had continuous access to it from the care app and indeed the respondent sent him a further copy by email in May when he requested this.[48]For the above reasons all of the claimant’s claims are dismissed.