did not attend For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant worked as a chef for the respondent on a zero-hours contract from 4 January 2020, at an hourly rate of £10. His last shift was on 16 March 2020, and the nightclub closed on 20 March 2020 after the national lockdown. On 31 March 2020 the respondent told zero-hours staff that all work was cancelled until further notice and that no furlough arrangements would be offered.

The claimant did not attend the hearing. The tribunal was satisfied that he had been notified and proceeded under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after concluding there was no good reason for his non-attendance. No witness evidence was called by the respondent, and the tribunal relied on the documents and the parties' written cases.

The tribunal found that the claimant resigned on 1 December 2020 when he emailed asking for his P45 and last payslip. It held that the wording, read in context, showed an intention to bring the employment to an end. Even if there had been doubt, the surrounding circumstances supported that conclusion. Because the claimant resigned, there was no dismissal, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.104 ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal also rejected any constructive dismissal basis, finding no sufficient evidence of breach of contract by the respondent and no obligation to provide work on the zero-hours contract when the club was shut.

The wrongful dismissal claim failed for the same reason: there was no dismissal and no breach of contract. The unlawful deduction from wages claim also failed because, on the tribunal's findings, no wages were due after the claimant's last shift and furlough pay was not a contractual entitlement. The tribunal noted that holiday pay had been calculated and paid by bank transfer on 18 December 2020 in the sum of £402.50, and that no complaint was brought about that payment. All claims were dismissed.