Case 1600680/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Abdullahi v Solo Service Group Ltd and 4 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600680/2021
- Decision date
- 20 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Appearances
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Ms R Abdullahi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim arose from a proposed COVID-19-related reduction in contracted hours for cleaners transferred into the respondent's employment under TUPE. The remaining claimants' contracts included a clause stating that hours of work were subject to variation only by mutual agreement between the employee and a manager or supervisor. The respondent consulted on a reduction of 3 hours and 22 minutes per week, but the changes were implemented without signed agreement. Ms F Ali's claim was withdrawn when it became apparent that overtime had mitigated any loss.
Applying the objective approach to contractual interpretation in Arnold v Britton and Charterbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd, and the authorities on contractual variation including Simmonds v Dowty Deals Ltd, Hepworth Heating Ltd v Akers and International Packaging Corporation (UK) Ltd v Balfour, the tribunal held that the contract did not permit a unilateral reduction in hours. It found that none of the remaining claimants agreed to the change, so the respondent's imposed reduction was a breach of contract. The tribunal also accepted that the claimants were ready and willing to work their original contracted hours.
The tribunal held that the failure to pay for the hours removed by the respondent amounted to an unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In explaining the wage analysis, the tribunal referred to Agarwal v Cardiff University, Delaney v Staples, Hussman Manufacturing Ltd v Weir, Beveridge v KLM UK Ltd and Capek v Lincolnshire County Council. The tribunal also noted that consultation defects did not affect the outcome because the contractual term required agreement.
Remedy was agreed by consent, so the written reasons dealt only with liability. The order records compensation of £1,114.68 for Ms R Abdullahi plus a £76.00 goodwill sum, £2,788.36 for Ms A Sahal plus a £118.75 goodwill sum, £275.02 for Ms Z Adow, and £1,272.17 for Ms S Mohammed plus a £61.75 goodwill sum. The total amount payable under the order was £5,706.73.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms R Abdullahi's unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded. The judgment records compensation of £1,114.68 by consent and a further £76.00 described as a goodwill gesture and included in the order. | Upheld | — | £1,191 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms A Sahal's unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded. The judgment records compensation of £2,788.36 by consent and a further £118.75 described as a goodwill gesture and included in the order. | Upheld | — | £2,907 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms Z Adow's unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded. The judgment records compensation of £275.02 by consent. No separate goodwill sum was recorded for her. | Upheld | — | £275 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms S Mohammed's unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded. The judgment records compensation of £1,272.17 by consent and a further £61.75 described as a goodwill gesture and included in the order. | Upheld | — | £1,334 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms F Ali's claim was dismissed upon withdrawal after it became apparent that she had worked enough overtime to mitigate any loss. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,707
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36
- Charterbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38
- Simmonds v Dowty Deals Ltd [1978] IRLR 211
- Hepworth Heating Ltd v Akers and ors [2003] UKEAT
- International Packaging Corporation (UK) Ltd v Balfour [2003] IRLR 11
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Agarwal v Cardiff University and anor [2019] ICR 433 CA
- Delaney v Staples (t/a De Montfort Recruitment) [1991] ICR 331 CA
- Hussman Manufacturing Ltd v Weir [1998] IRLR 288 EAT
- Beveridge v KLM UK Ltd [2000] IRLR 765
- Capek v Lincolnshire County Council [2000] IRLR 590
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.