Unlawful deduction from wages claim out of time and Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The claimant commenced work as a simulated patient from May 2012. The claimant was booked on single separate engagements for the next ten years. In 2022 those who had engaged in work as simulated patients were emailed and informed that they would be engaged as workers as part of a larger project known as ‘Extended Workforce’. This required those individuals to register with Qwork and indicate the type of work they were interest in. The respondent’s managers would then post assignments which could be accepted by the Q worker.

The claimant never completed the Qwork registration and never provided any services as a Q worker nor was he offered or accepted any Qwork engagements. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the last contract between the claimant and respondent ended in April 2022.

The claimant’s claim related to an unlawful deduction from wages and a failure to pay holiday pay from 2012.

The issue at this preliminary hearing was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim. As noted above, the last contractual arrangement between the claimant and respondent was in April 2022 and the claim form was submitted in January 2024. This was approximately 18 months out of time.  The claimant was found to have been familiar with the Tribunal processes having assisted his son to bring a claim in 2019 which was settled in 2023.  The claimant stated that he was restricted by the Covid restrictions that were in place at the time.  That argument was rejected by the Tribunal.

The claimant also states that he was advised by the LRA not to submit his own claim whilst his son’s claim was being considered. It was only in January 2024 that he sought the conciliation certificate from LRA and then submitted his claim. The claimant also argued he was still an employee as he never received a P45 and still receives correspondence from the respondent. The respondent argued that the claimant was never an employee or a worker and was an independent contractor.  They further argued that it was feasible for the claimant to submit his claim on time, and he also could have done so within a reasonable time after the time limit expired.  This did not happen.

The Tribunal decided that the claim was lodged outside of the time limit, and it was not demonstrated that time should be extended. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Yet another case relating to time limits. In this case the claimant argued that he remained an employee by virtue of not receiving a P45 and receiving some correspondence.  However, the Tribunal did not have to determine that matter as the claim was submitted outside of time and the argument that it was due to Covid restrictions when said restrictions had already been lifted was not one accepted by the Tribunal.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.