Ms A Stasikyniene v East London Beauty Academy Ltd. and 1 other — 2022

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint against East London Beauty Academy Ltd because Ms A Stasikyniene did not have the two-year qualifying period required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 and had not shown that any exception in section 108(3)-(5) applied. It also dismissed the race discrimination and disability discrimination claims against both respondents. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was of Lithuanian nationality and origin and a disabled person by reason of a cancer diagnosis, but found that she had not discharged the burden under section 136 Equality Act 2010 of proving primary facts from which discrimination because of race or disability could be inferred.

The tribunal rejected the £2,240 breach of contract claim relating to payment for laser equipment used for beauty treatments. It held that the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994 only covered contract matters arising out of or outstanding on termination of employment, and found that the arrangement was a discrete commercial arrangement conducted through a separate joint business venture rather than a dispute connected with employment.

On the money claims, the tribunal found that the claimant was an employee of the First Respondent and accordingly was entitled to one week's notice pay of £246.75 net. It also upheld the claim for accrued and unpaid holiday pay and awarded £1,423.80. The total payable by the First Respondent within 28 days was £1,670.55. The tribunal additionally noted that the claimant had already obtained a separate judgment dated 11 January 2021 for unpaid wages of £1,260.