In person For the v Mr L Robert-Lennard, Consultant (acting pro bono - this means he cannot charge the Respondents money, nor should they pay him anything.) — 2024

The tribunal found that the claimant started work for the first respondent on 1 January 2023 delivering food by car. It accepted that he had a diagnosis of autism from GP records, that he told Josh about his autism on his first day, but that there was no evidence that Ms Mai Yang knew this. The tribunal also found there was no probationary period, no express guaranteed-hours arrangement, and that the agreed pay was £8 per hour plus £1 per delivery, with the claimant being paid by reference to the hours and deliveries actually worked.

The automatic unfair dismissal claims under s.103A and s.104A ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal found that the 14 May 2023 text exchange, together with the claimant not returning to work, was in reality a resignation rather than a dismissal. On that basis the notice pay claim also failed. The direct disability discrimination claim based on autism and the direct age discrimination claim were dismissed: the tribunal found the challenged pay and rostering decisions were taken for commercial reasons, not because of disability or age, and it applied the threshold guidance in Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal. The separate disability discrimination claim relating to an ankle injury was struck out, as was the redundancy pay claim.

The claimant succeeded on the National Minimum Wage element of the unlawful deductions claim. The tribunal accepted that fuel and ULEZ charges were expenses incurred in connection with the employment and deducted £12.50 per day for each, but rejected insurance and repair costs. On that basis it found the claimant's net receipt was £4,000 across 776.75 hours, giving an hourly rate of £5.15 and a shortfall of £3,907.32 against the applicable minimum wage. It also upheld the claim for failure to provide written terms of employment and awarded two weeks' pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002 (£832.35), and it awarded a further £832.35 for accrued holiday pay on termination. The tribunal also declared that itemised pay statements had not been provided, and the overall award recorded in the judgment was £5,572.01.