Mr Arshad v Kingdom Services Group Limited — 2023

The tribunal found that the claimant had two contractual relationships: a fixed-hours PGS assignment contract and an overarching PCL contract. The PGS assignment contract was not a zero-hour contract, given the claimant's 13 years of continuous work at the Weybridge site on a stable 59-hour pattern. The PCL contract, by contrast, was a zero-hour contract governing periods between assignments.

The PGS assignment ended on 8 February 2022 when the client no longer required security services at the Weybridge site. The tribunal found this was a redundancy situation and that the respondent had proceeded under a redundancy process rather than invoking a mobility clause before termination. It also found that no clear statutory offer of suitable alternative employment had been made before the assignment ended, so the claimant did not lose entitlement to redundancy pay.

For the unfair and constructive dismissal complaints concerning the PCL contract, the tribunal found that neither party had communicated a termination of that contract. As there was no dismissal, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine those claims. The wages claim failed because, after the PGS assignment ended, the relevant contract was the zero-hour PCL contract and no wages were properly payable for periods when no work was provided.