Ms G Soares v Scooters Ltd — 2021

The Claimant, Ms G Soares, was employed by Scooters Ltd on a zero-hours contract from 20 June 2019, working first as a cleaner and later as a filing clerk. At the start of the hearing she clarified that her claims were unfair dismissal, holiday pay from 31 March 2021 onwards, and direct marriage discrimination based on the Respondent's alleged failure to offer work, allow homeworking, or place her on flexible furlough after her marriage in December 2020.

On holiday pay, the Respondent accepted that £834.57 was owed for holiday accrued between January 2020 and March 2021 and paid that sum on 13 September 2021; it later paid a further £566.10 for 2019 holiday pay on 10 February 2022. The Tribunal found the Claimant had not shown that any further pay in lieu of holiday was due. It also held that, because she had not worked after 31 March 2021 and was on a zero-hours contract, she was only entitled to holiday in proportion to hours actually worked and was not entitled to holiday pay for the later period.

The unfair dismissal claim also failed because the Tribunal found that the Claimant had not resigned and the Respondent had not dismissed her. The Respondent's case was that work remained available under the zero-hours contract and that the contract continued in force if the Claimant wished to do the work. The Tribunal therefore held that there was no dismissal and no valid unfair dismissal claim.

On the discrimination claim, the Tribunal accepted that the Claimant told Ms S Gebremdhin on 18 March 2021 that she had married, and that Ms Gebremdhin responded in congratulatory terms. However, it found that the Claimant's married status had no bearing on the later decisions about work. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's explanations that the Claimant could not work from home because her duties involved cleaning and filing sensitive client documents and she had not been trained on the computer, and that the Respondent did not wish to continue furloughing employees after 31 March 2021. Applying section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, the Tribunal found that the Claimant had not proved facts from which direct marriage discrimination could be inferred; in any event, it was satisfied with the Respondent's non-discriminatory explanation.