Miss N Davies v Tregno Resourcing Limited — 2021

Miss N Davies was employed as an office manager, with some bookkeeping duties, under a contract dated 8 November 2016. The tribunal accepted the written terms and the associated email setting out on-call arrangements, including a £50 weekend on-call payment and a day off in lieu, and found that from late 2018 she was effectively the only employee holding the helpline phone at all times. The respondent did not provide witness statements or documents, and no performance concerns or performance-management process had been raised while the claimant was employed.

The tribunal found that the employment ended on 15 November 2019 and that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. It accepted Mrs Brockley's evidence that the business was not turning over and found that the respondent intended to cease carrying on the business because it was not financially viable. On that basis, the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £2,209.50.

On notice pay, the tribunal held that the claimant's contract required one month's notice and that she was dismissed without it. There was no basis for dismissal without notice and no finding of gross misconduct. The tribunal awarded £1,911.00 gross for breach of contract. It also found that the claimant had accrued 24.5 days' holiday in 2019, had taken no annual leave, and was owed £2,405.90 gross for holiday pay.

On wages, the tribunal found a series of underpayments between April and November 2019 and also found that 32 Sunday on-call days in lieu had not been paid. It held those matters were unlawful deductions from wages, but it could not finally quantify the full shortfall because it could not tell whether the sums already received were gross or net, so a remedy hearing was to be listed to determine the remaining amount. The tribunal calculated £2,016.00 for unpaid days in lieu on a provisional basis.

The respondent's breach of contract counterclaim failed. The tribunal rejected the allegations that the claimant had falsely represented her bookkeeping competence, had not done her work in a timely manner, or had stolen money from the respondent. It found no evidence of repudiatory breach, noted that the respondent had not raised concerns during the employment, and accepted that Mrs Brockley had not queried the £400 payment to Christopher Brown when she became aware of it.