Ms M Ogumodede v Churchill Contract Services — 2025

The claimant held two separate cleaning contracts with Churchill: a day-shift role at Deutsche Bank and a night-shift role at the Houses of Parliament. The tribunal found that she had previously concealed the Deutsche Bank work from KGB and then again on the TUPE joiner form completed for Churchill. Once the respondent became her employer for both roles in May 2024, it identified that the combined pattern breached the Working Time Regulations, particularly the daily rest requirements and the rules on night work.

Following a meeting on 25 July 2024, the claimant was suspended on nil pay from the Houses of Parliament contract. The respondent then consulted with her on several occasions about how the employment could continue lawfully, including options for reduced hours at the Houses of Parliament and continued work only in a pattern that complied with the Working Time Regulations. The tribunal found that the claimant did not engage with those options and continued to prefer redundancy.

On redundancy, the tribunal found that the claimant was not in a redundancy situation. Nineteen cleaners volunteered for redundancy and were accepted, and the tribunal found that the respondent had already achieved the required staffing reduction before dismissing the claimant from the Houses of Parliament contract on 28 October 2024. It therefore dismissed the redundancy pay claim and held that the claimant was not dismissed by reason of redundancy.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant could not continue in the Houses of Parliament role without contravening reg 6 of the Working Time Regulations, alternatively that the reason was some other substantial reason. It held that the dismissal process and decision were within the range of reasonable responses and therefore fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It also held that common law illegality prevented the claimant from enforcing the Houses of Parliament contract for suspension pay and notice pay, and that the same analysis defeated the breach of contract and unlawful deduction claims. No monetary award was made.