Mrs B Chambers v Smile Foster Care Limited — 2023

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed on a zero-hours basis and rejected her case that she had been guaranteed 37.5 hours per week or that the employment contract was forged. It accepted that a written contract was given to and signed by the claimant after the employment started, and that the contract did not oblige the respondent to offer particular hours or Sunday working.

On the claimant's return from furlough in August 2021, the tribunal found that fewer hours were available because the respondent had more support workers and fewer young people to support. It did not accept that the allocation of mostly late shifts was done to bully or single her out. However, it found that the respondent's handling of the grievance presented on 24 December 2021 was deficient: no meeting was held, no adequate investigation was carried out, and no appeal was offered. That conduct was held to breach the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and the claimant resigned at least in part because of it.

The tribunal therefore upheld the constructive unfair dismissal claim and, because no potentially fair reason for dismissal was advanced, held that the dismissal was unfair under the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also upheld the wrongful dismissal claim, finding that the claimant was entitled to two weeks' statutory notice under s.86(1)(b) ERA 1996 and had been dismissed without notice. The tribunal dismissed the unlawful deductions claim because there was no legal entitlement to payment for 37.5 hours per week, and dismissed the holiday pay claim because there was no sufficient evidence of leave accrued, taken, or calculable on the evidence before it. A remedies hearing was listed for 8 August 2023.