Mr J Orior Mr A Peters v Providence Linc United Services (PLUS) — 2021

After a two-day hearing on 25 and 26 March 2021, the tribunal considered the two claimants’ case that they were not on zero-hours contracts but on contracts guaranteeing minimum hours of work. The claims were framed as: what their statutory statements of employment particulars should record about hours, whether the respondent was in breach of those particulars, and whether there had been unauthorised deductions from wages.

The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that the claimants had been issued written contractual terms within 28 days of starting employment, and that those documents made clear they were on zero-hours contracts. It found there was no guarantee of fixed or minimum hours, no requirement to accept particular shifts, and no consistent working pattern that showed the contracts had been varied by custom and practice or by any implied term. In Mr Orior’s case, the tribunal rejected the argument that a previous 20-hour limit reflected a guaranteed minimum, finding that it was linked to his student visa restrictions rather than a contractual entitlement.

Applying Part 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held the written employment contracts complied with the respondent’s obligation to provide statutory statements of employment particulars, and the contractual hours of work were clear. Applying Part 2 of the Act, it found there had been no unauthorised deductions from or non-payment of wages because the claimants were paid for hours actually worked and there were no additional minimum hours that were unpaid. It also found there had been no breach of contract under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994. All claims were dismissed.