Mr A Fernandez, Lay Representative For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal dealt with a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction and legality. It found that the claimant had been re-employed under s.230(1) ERA 1996 between 15 September 2019 and 8 January 2020, but that the live claims were only unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages because claims of disability and race discrimination were no longer pursued.

On the facts, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's original employment ended when her resignation took effect on 14 September 2019. It then found that she continued working for Mitie at the invitation and/or instruction of her line manager, covering multiple Tesco stores and logging hours using her sons' live payroll PIN/ID numbers. The tribunal held that the respondent was vicariously liable for the line manager's conduct because he was acting within the normal field of activity of supervising cleaning staff.

The tribunal held that the second period of work ended on 8 January 2020, when the claimant was told to stop working. It found that the unfair dismissal and wages claims were in time under s.111(2)(a) and s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996, but dismissed them because the post-resignation arrangement was tainted by illegality. Applying the Patel v Mirza proportionality analysis, the tribunal found that the claimant knowingly participated in the use of the 'ghost' accounts, that the arrangement affected tax deductions and Working Time Regulations concerns, and that refusing enforcement was proportionate. No remedy was awarded.