Ms K Hong v Ecooldeals Services Ltd — 2021

The claimant worked for the respondent as packaging and labelling staff from 22 October 2018 until her summary dismissal with effect from 6 January 2019. The tribunal found that the respondent had no written contract of employment, that the claimant signed a Chinese-language handbook, and that her hours had been reduced from 32.5 per week to 20 per week at £8.50 gross. The dismissal followed the claimant's emails of 4 and 25 January 2019 about holiday pay and notice pay.

On the notice pay issue, the tribunal rejected the respondent's case that the claimant had committed gross misconduct. It held that the handbook provision relied on by the claimant governed notice given by employees, not the employer's notice obligation, and that the statutory minimum notice under section 86 ERA 1996 was one week. Notice pay was calculated on the basis of 20 hours at £8.50, giving £170, and that figure was increased by 25% because the respondent had not complied with the ACAS Code on grievances, producing £212.50.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant did not have two years' continuous service for ordinary unfair dismissal, so she could only succeed under section 104 ERA 1996. It found that her 4 January 2019 email was an allegation that the respondent had infringed a relevant statutory right under the Working Time Regulations, that she made the allegation in good faith, and that the dismissal on 6 January 2019 was principally because of that complaint. The respondent's explanation that the dismissal was effectively for redundancy was rejected. The tribunal made no basic award because the claimant had less than one year's service, and it assessed the compensatory award at £939, comprising one week's net loss of £119 plus a four-week section 38 Employment Act 2002 uplift of £820 for failure to give written particulars. The tribunal did not reduce the award for contribution or Polkey.

The claim for deduction from wages was dismissed on withdrawal after the claimant confirmed she was not pursuing it. The holiday pay claim was resolved by consent: the operative order states £26.90, although paragraph 6 of the reasons refers to £25.90. No separate findings were made on the holiday pay issue beyond that consent order.