Tribunal rules dismissed care worker should get almost £17,000 in unpaid wages

A whistleblowing care worker’s labour exploitation case could set a precedent to help others get justice over fraudulent use of visa schemes, a lawyer has said.

An employment tribunal has ruled that an Indian man who came to the UK on a care worker visa but was dismissed after raising concerns about not being given work should be given almost £17,000 in unpaid wages.

Kirankumar Rathod, who came to the UK in May 2023 but was let go in November of that year should be paid £16,900.97 to cover that period and must also be given £1,703 each month until his tribunal case is complete, a judge said.

Employment judge Natasha Joffe, who gave a ruling at the London Central Employment Tribunal (pictured) this month, granted the 39-year-old interim relief – with his main case ongoing – in the form of wages from the date he was dismissed until the final determination of his claims.

He is taking a case against Clinica Private Healthcare Limited, claiming he had not been provided with appropriate work once he arrived in the UK and that he was then let go when he complained about it.

Migrant support charity, the Work Rights Centre (WRC), said it has heard dozens of allegations of similar exploitation in the care sector through the Health and Care worker visa scheme.

The charity said the scheme has been “operated so poorly that it resulted in facilitating international fraud and the exploitation of workers from overseas”.

It requires someone from abroad to have a certificate of sponsorship with information about the role they have been offered in the UK.

The charity said a “very large number of people” have faced exploitation when they were required to pay large sums of money to be considered for the jobs, but after they arrived in the UK the companies that sponsored them did not provide the jobs as advertised.

The overall issue was highlighted in a watchdog report published earlier this year which, in an inspection of the immigration system relating to the social care sector, found that 275 certificates of sponsorship were granted to a care home “that did not exist”.

Former independent chief inspector of borders and immigration David Neal, said the Home Office had effectively “created a system that invited large numbers of low-skilled workers to this country who are at risk from exploitation” and that control measures to mitigate the risk “were totally inadequate”.

Solicitor Dr Sarmila Bose, head of employment at the WRC, said Mr Rathod’s case is significant.

She said: “In Kiran’s case, the significance of the decision is that a judge has assessed on the basis of evidence available so far that his claim of unfair dismissal on the grounds of whistleblowing has a pretty good chance of succeeding when the claims are heard in the main hearing.

“This case sets a persuasive precedent that, in certain circumstances, interim relief may be payable to a migrant worker who is suing their former employer, even if that employer has lost their license to sponsor migrant workers.”

Judge Joffe, in a June ruling, noted: “The contract offered a job which did not materialise and the subsequent behaviour of the respondents (Clinica) suggested the claimant (Mr Rathod) and others were being strung along.”

In his witness statement previously submitted to the tribunal, Mr Rathod told how in November last year, six months after he had arrived in the UK with his wife and child, he contacted Clinica to ask “once again” when he would be given work.

Mr Rathod, who is living in London, told the person he spoke to that “the situation was killing me, I could not sleep at night”.

Mr Rathod said in his statement that he felt he was being defrauded, adding: “I was thinking, the government needs to know about this, how the visa scheme is being misused to defraud people, bring them here from other countries, push them into cash-in-hand jobs.”

WRC said it has had inquiries from more than 60 people in this year alone, with allegations of similar exploitation.

Dr Bose said: “We also hope that this (case) further raises awareness of the issue of the sponsored visa scheme, which we would like to be altered significantly by removing the dependency on sponsors for migrant workers.

“The scheme has been rolled out and operated so poorly that it resulted in facilitating international fraud and the exploitation of workers from overseas.”

She said much of the exploitation remains “hidden” with many migrants feeling they are in a “very precarious position because of the power that the employer has over them because of the sponsorship scheme”.

Clinica has said Mr Rathod was dismissed “after a series of breaches to his contract” and that he had been employed to provide services to third parties, with his hours and pay varying depending on what work was provided.

The main case on the claim for unfair dismissal will be heard on a date yet to be set.

Copyright (c) PA Media Ltd. 2024, All Rights Reserved. Picture (c) Google Maps.