Case 2304998/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms O Odutayo v Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304998/2021
- Decision date
- 18 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms O Odutayo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged she had been dismissed by telephone on 11 June 2021. The respondent's position was that she had not been dismissed and remained employed on a zero-hour contract, supported by later correspondence about her availability for work.
The Tribunal accepted the respondent's jurisdictional argument that the claimant remained employed. It also considered the claim at its highest, on the basis that the claimant had been dismissed on 11 June 2021, and found that she did not have two years' continuous employment and that the claim had not been submitted within three months of the alleged dismissal.
The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the necessary qualifying period of employment. It found that the claimant's reference to whistleblowing did not displace the qualifying period because the substance of the complaint was ordinary unfair dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant referred at the hearing to being a whistleblower, but the Tribunal found the substance of the complaint was ordinary unfair dismissal and that the qualifying period applied. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 94 ERA
- section 108 ERA
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.