In person For the v Mr Hoyle (legal consultant) — 2021

The tribunal preferred the Claimant's evidence and found that, at the outset, Ms Greenall agreed she would work 24 hours per week at £9.15 per hour, with Mondays and Fridays unavailable because of college. The tribunal rejected the Respondent's case that she was a bank or zero-hours worker, finding instead that the Claimant was an employee and that the Respondent's repeated assertions to the contrary, including an alleged April email, were not supported by the evidence.

The Claimant was suspended on full pay from 14 March 2021 after an incident at work. The tribunal found that she was never told the suspension had ended, never given the outcome of the disciplinary process, and never dismissed before the P45 was provided on 15 July 2021 during the proceedings. It held that the provision of the P45 amounted to termination, and that the effective date of termination was 22 July 2021 after one week's notice.

Because the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant from 14 March 2021 to 22 July 2021, the tribunal awarded £4,058.16, calculated as 18.5 weeks at 24 hours per week and £9.14 per hour. It also found that, when the proceedings began, the Respondent was in breach of its duty to give the Claimant a written statement of employment particulars. There were no exceptional circumstances making the statutory minimum unjust or inequitable, and the tribunal considered it just and equitable to award four weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, producing a further award of £877.44.