(1) Angel Mbala (2) Blessing Manzambi v Hadja Kieta and 1 other — 2023

The claimants, who were cousins, worked as waitresses at the respondents' Lewisham shisha bar and restaurant from 25 August 2022 after two days' unpaid training. There was no written contract. The tribunal identified the main disputes as the hours worked, the hourly rates agreed at the start, and whether the claimants had been paid for the work they did. It preferred the claimants' evidence on the hours worked and found Ms Kieta's evidence vague and unspecific on the disputed attendance issues.

On pay, the tribunal found that the initial agreed rate was £7 per hour. For Angel Mbala, who was 22, that was below the national minimum wage, so the correct rate for the relevant period was £9.18 per hour. A later proposed increase to £9 per hour was also below the minimum wage. For Blessing Manzambi, who was 18, the tribunal found the applicable rate was £7 per hour up to 2 October 2022 and £8 per hour from that date. Using the schedule attached to the judgment and deducting the payments already made, it found that Angel Mbala was owed £1,491.42 and Blessing Manzambi was owed £1,034.54 in gross unpaid wages.

The notice pay claims were dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimants walked out during their shift on 16 October 2022 and were not entitled to notice pay, referring to section 86(6) ERA 1996. It also found that, when proceedings began, the respondents were in breach of their duty to provide written statements of employment particulars. Under section 38 Employment Act 2002, it therefore awarded Angel Mbala a further £490.36 and Blessing Manzambi a further £373.14. The total gross award across both claimants was £3,389.46, subject to tax or National Insurance where applicable.