Case 2408881/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr BO Aro v Total Security Service Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408881/2021
- Decision date
- 10 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Poynton
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr BO Aro
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Aro worked for Total Security Service Ltd as a Security/COVID Officer from 27 April 2020 to 22 May 2021 on a variable-hours contract. At the start of the final hearing the tribunal refused his application to add a constructive dismissal complaint because he had less than two years' service. It allowed an amendment for a breach of contract complaint about shifts only for the period 25 April 2021 to 22 May 2021, and treated the notice-pay claim and fuel-subsidy complaint as the substantive issues for decision.
On notice pay, the tribunal found that the claimant's contract and section 86 ERA 1996 entitled him to one week's notice. It accepted that no concerns had been raised about his conduct or performance, found no basis for dismissal without notice, and calculated damages using the 12-week average of 23.6 hours at the April 2021 National Minimum Wage rate of £8.91, producing an award of £210.28.
The fuel-subsidy claim failed because the written terms did not provide for a subsidy and the tribunal found there was no agreement to pay one. The shifts complaint also failed: the contract guaranteed a minimum of five hours per week or 20 hours per four-week period, but did not require all minimum hours to be made available in any particular week; the tribunal found shifts were available on the portal on 21 and 22 May 2021, that the relevant four-week guarantee had been met, and that the claimant had told the respondent he had made other arrangements during the notice period.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay/wrongful dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to one week’s notice under the contract and section 86 ERA 1996, found no basis for dismissal without notice, and awarded £210.28. The judgment says this was a net sum calculated using gross figures because the claimant may have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £210 |
| Breach of contract | Fuel subsidy. The tribunal found the written terms did not provide for a fuel subsidy and that the respondent did not agree to pay one. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Failure to provide shifts. The amendment was allowed only for the period 25 April 2021 to 22 May 2021; the extracted reasons section contains a year typo in the amendment discussion, but the findings and conclusion address 2021. The tribunal found the contractual minimum-hours guarantee had been met, that shifts were available on the portal on 21 and 22 May 2021, and that the claimant had told the respondent he had made other arrangements during his notice period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £210
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £210
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Selkent Bus Co Limited v Moore
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Limited
- Regulation 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.