Case 2415819/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Dellal v ABM Aviation UK Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415819/2020
- Decision date
- 6 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Dellal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr G Dellal, had been employed by ABM Aviation UK Limited since 2007. He presented claims after early conciliation, including a complaint under the Zero Hours Regulations based on an asserted exclusivity clause and a complaint of unlawful deductions from pay concerning furlough pay said to be underpaid on 10 May 2020 by £229.86.
On the Zero Hours Regulations complaint, Regional Employment Judge Franey applied the strike-out test under rule 37(1)(a) and the approach to weak discrimination-like claims discussed in Mechkarov v Citibank NA. Taking the claimant's case at its highest and assuming an exclusivity clause existed, the tribunal held that the protection in regulation 2 was not engaged because there had been no actual breach: the claimant had not done work or performed services for another employer. The alternative argument that the clause prevented him from even seeking work was also rejected, because a clause of that kind would fall outside section 27A(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That complaint was therefore struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
On the unlawful deduction claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant believed the three-month time limit ran from 10 June 2020, when he thought the employer could next correct the pay, but held that section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 runs time from the date of the deduction itself, here 10 May 2020. Applying section 23(4) and the authorities cited, including Palmer, Bodha, Trevelyans and Marks and Spencer v Williams-Ryan, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have discovered the correct position by internet research or by asking his union. Because the first condition for extending time was not met, the unlawful deductions complaint was dismissed as out of time.
The tribunal recorded that, because the deductions claim failed, it had no power to make any award for failure to provide a written statement of the main terms of employment. No monetary remedy was awarded on either complaint, and the proceedings were brought to an end.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint of detriment contrary to regulation 2 of the Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015. The tribunal assumed for the strike-out application that the contract contained an exclusivity clause, but held there had been no actual breach because the claimant did not do work or perform services for another employer. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint about the furlough payment made on 10 May 2020. Dismissed because it was presented outside the three-month time limit and the tribunal was not satisfied it had not been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- rule 37(1)(a)
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- s.27A(3) ERA 1996
- s.23(2) ERA 1996
- s.23(4) ERA 1996
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Marks and Spencer Plc v Williams-Ryan
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.