Ms S Messum (lay representative) v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal found that the claimant had worked under a genuine zero-hours contract, although the respondent's BRC-facing job descriptions referred to minimum hours. It accepted that in March 2019 Dr Akbar wrongly accused the claimant of theft, and that in early June 2019 she was told she was on call after a holiday misunderstanding and then told not to present fit notes if she wanted more hours.

On the 12 June 2019 incident, the tribunal preferred the claimant's account in large part. It found that Dr Akbar shouted at her, used abusive language, and behaved without reasonable and proper cause in a way likely to damage trust and confidence. It did not find that he physically threatened or chased her as alleged, but it held that, taken together with the instruction that she would never be called for work again, this amounted to a dismissal on or around 12 June 2019.

Despite those findings, the constructive unfair dismissal/unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay and Equality Act harassment complaints were dismissed because they were presented outside the primary time limits and the tribunal would not extend time. For the harassment allegations, which it said ran from January 2017 to January 2019, the tribunal applied section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and held that an extension was not just and equitable, noting the claimant's vulnerabilities but also that she had earlier opportunities to raise the issue and had not done so.

The tribunal also found that the earlier 2019 claim and the later grievance history showed the claimant had been able to take steps to bring complaints within time, which weighed against any argument that it was not reasonably practicable to do so. The statutory sick pay complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, with the tribunal saying that statutory sick pay entitlement was a matter for HMRC. No tribunal monetary award was made.