Case 2303663/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Beech, Trade Union Representative Interpreter for Claimants: Ms Pardington (Portuguese/English) For the v Mr T Jerman, Director — 2021
- Case reference
- 2303663/2019
- Decision date
- 18 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyde Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Beech, Trade Union Representative Interpreter for Claimants: Ms Pardington (Portuguese/English) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims arose after the BCC cleaning contract ended on 12 April 2019. The tribunal found the claimants had worked for Crystal Services on site-based cleaning contracts, that the respondent's handbook documents were not reliable proof that compliant section 1 statements had been given, and that the contracts allowed the respondent to move cleaners between sites and did not guarantee a minimum number of hours.
The tribunal rejected the case that either claimant had been actually dismissed on 12 April 2019 or any other date. It accepted that BCC had given short notice on 29 March 2019, but found no oral or written termination notice before 12 April and noted that the respondent then offered alternative placements after the BCC work ended, including Hammersmith Arena on 15 April, Bank of India on 24 April and Vauxhall Bridge on 3 May 2019. Mr Gaspar refused the later offers as too far from home, while Mr David accepted alternative work at Osborne's from 17 May 2019.
Mr Gaspar's constructive dismissal complaint failed because the tribunal found no minimum-hours term and no breach of contract arising from the end of the BCC placement. Mr David withdrew his constructive dismissal complaint at the hearing. The ordinary unfair dismissal complaints of both claimants were dismissed because the tribunal found no dismissal and therefore no need to determine the time-limit issue it had set out under s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996.
The alternative unlawful deduction from wages claims also failed because the tribunal found the claimants had been paid for the BCC hours worked up to 12 April 2019 and had no entitlement to a guaranteed minimum number of hours after that date. The holiday pay claims were dismissed because accrued holiday pay for the BCC work had already been paid. Both claimants also withdrew their complaints about failure to provide written reasons for dismissal, and no compensation uplift or award arose.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Mr David withdrew his constructive dismissal complaint at the hearing; it was dismissed forthwith on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Both claimants withdrew their complaints under s.92 ERA 1996 that the respondent had failed to provide written reasons for dismissal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Mr Gaspar's constructive unfair dismissal complaint under ss.95(1)(c) and 98(4) ERA 1996 was dismissed; the tribunal found no contractual minimum-hours term and no breach of contract arising from the end of the BCC work. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal complaints of both claimants under ss.95(1)(a) and 98(4) ERA 1996 were dismissed; the tribunal found no actual dismissal and no date on which dismissal took effect. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Both claimants' alternative unlawful deduction from wages claims from 12 April 2019 were dismissed because there was no entitlement to a guaranteed minimum number of hours. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Hogg v Dover College [1990] ICR 39
- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
- s.95(1)(a) and s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996 (not reasonably practicable)
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.