In person For the v Mr Da Silva (by telephone for part of the hearing only) — 2020

Ms C Germana worked as a beautician for Sole Beauty Salons Ltd from 28 March 2019 to 1 July 2019. The tribunal found there was no written contract, but emails from Mr Da Silva showed the respondent set her start date, dress code, hours, location and work standards. It also found she worked about 40 hours per week, was paid monthly in arrears, and had not been issued payslips.

The notice pay claim was dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant resigned and was not dismissed or constructively dismissed, and that she gave notice around 22 June 2019 and worked in substance until the end of June. Even if she were an employee entitled to one week’s notice under s 86 ERA 1996, she had already worked that notice period, so no separate notice pay was due.

The unpaid wages claim for June 2019 succeeded on the respondent’s admission, with gross wages of £1,580 due. The holiday pay claim also succeeded: the tribunal found the claimant was a worker within reg 1(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and s 230(3) ERA 1996, relying on the degree of control, personal service and the absence of a client/customer relationship. It held she was entitled on termination to pay in lieu of 7.3 days’ untaken leave, calculated at a daily rate of £80, producing gross holiday pay of £583.01.

The tribunal considered the tax and public policy point under Hounga v Allen because tax had not been paid during the engagement. It concluded an award would not allow the claimant to profit from wrongful conduct or compromise the legal system, and ordered payment of £1,765.49 net of tax within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.