Soundbite: When an Employment Offer Becomes a Binding Commitment

When an Employment Offer Becomes a Binding Commitment

The Employment Tribunal decision in Mr S Shaji v Swan Care Solutions Ltd is a useful reminder that employers must take care when making offers of employment. The case is especially relevant to employers recruiting sponsored workers, care-sector workers and any business using offer letters or onboarding arrangements before work is actually allocated.

Mr Shaji, an Indian citizen, was sponsored by Swan Care Solutions Ltd to work in Stafford. He had reportedly paid a substantial sum to an external party, said to be £17,000, in connection with securing work in the UK. His Certificate of Sponsorship provided by the company stated that he would work 40 hours per week at a gross annual salary of £22,880. Relying on that sponsorship, Mr Shaji obtained his visa and travelled to the UK. He attended a new starter registration meeting and provided the documentation required to start work. He also completed online training and repeatedly contacted Swan Care Solutions to ask when he would be given work. However, Swan Care Solutions did not allocate him work and did not pay him. The company appeared to treat him as though he were a zero-hours worker, despite the sponsorship documentation stating fixed hours and fixed salary. Because Mr Shaji’s visa conditions limited his ability to work elsewhere for more than 20 hours per week, he was left without meaningful income until he obtained alternative sponsorship and began a new role in April 2024.

The Employment Tribunal considered Mr Shaji’s employment status, when his employment began and ended, and whether he was entitled to wages despite not being allocated work in addition to other claims. The Tribunal rejected Swan Care Solutions’ argument that Mr Shaji’s employment had never commenced because they had never paid him or offered him work. The Tribunal found that the relevant conditions for employment were that Mr Shaji was in the UK, held a valid visa, and lived within commuting distance. Once those conditions were met, the employment relationship had started.

The Tribunal also found that Mr Shaji was ready, willing, and able to work. The fact that he did not actually perform work was not his fault. The reason he did not work was that the company had failed to allocate him any duties. The company’s argument that incomplete training prevented the employment from starting was rejected. The Tribunal did not accept that training could be used to delay the employer’s obligation to pay where the sponsored role had already commenced. Mr Shaji was found to have been employed from 15 April 2023 to 21 April 2024 based on a 40-hour week and a gross annual salary of £22,880. The Tribunal awarded sums for unauthorised deductions from wages, holiday pay, and related statutory breaches. Reports of the case also record a costs order against the employer.

The decision demonstrates that employers cannot necessarily avoid wage liability simply by failing to allocate work. Where an employee has accepted an offer, satisfied the relevant conditions, and remains ready and willing to work, the employer may still be required to pay wages. This is particularly important in sponsored worker cases. A Certificate of Sponsorship is not simply an administrative immigration document. If it states a role, salary and working hours, those details may be important evidence of the contractual terms on which the worker was engaged. Employers should therefore ensure that their immigration sponsorship arrangements, offer letters, contracts and operational workforce planning are aligned. It is risky to sponsor a worker based on fixed hours and salary if the business intends to offer work only when shifts become available.

This case is a clear warning to employers: employment offers, sponsorship documents and onboarding arrangements can create binding obligations. Where an employer promises fixed hours and salary, and the worker relocates and makes themselves available for work, the employer may be liable for wages even if it provides no work. The safest approach is to ensure that offers are made only where the role is genuine and available, that any conditions are drafted with precision, and that sponsorship documentation accurately reflects the intended employment relationship. Fixed-hours employees should not be treated as casual workers, and onboarding or training requirements should not be used as a device to delay pay indefinitely.

If you need any assistance with reviewing or drafting your employment offer letters, contracts, and other documentation, please contact a member of the team