Case 3207417/2021 · Employment Tribunal
AFROJA BIBI SONIA v Hartiz Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3207417/2021
- Decision date
- 20 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
AFROJA BIBI SONIA
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAfroja Bibi Sonia worked for Hartiz Ltd as a waitress from 5 September 2020 to 24 July 2021 without a written contract. The tribunal rejected her case that she had a 30-hour contract, a later £9.50 hourly rate, or rolled-up holiday pay, and found instead that she was employed on a zero-hours basis at £9 per hour. On the bank and HMRC records it accepted that she was furloughed from early November 2020 until 30 June 2021, and it found that she had been underpaid during furlough, had accrued unpaid holiday pay, and had not been paid for 61.5 hours worked in July 2021.
The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.104 ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal did not find theft proved, but it accepted that Mr Afzal genuinely believed, after viewing CCTV from 23 July 2021, that the claimant had kept cash back from the till. Because the claimant did not show that her complaints about wages were the reason or principal reason for dismissal, the tribunal dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal awarded one week's notice pay at £245.42 net, two weeks' pay at £491 under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars, £1,215 net holiday pay, £1,688 net for furlough underpayment, and £553.50 gross for July 2021 hours. It also found that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code and said a 10% uplift was just and equitable, although the extracted order does not set out a coherent final uplift arithmetic.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.104 ERA 1996 dismissed. The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant because it genuinely believed CCTV showed her keeping cash back from the till, even though theft itself was not proved. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded for underpayment during furlough between November 2020 and June 2021 (£1,688 net) and unpaid July 2021 hours (£553.50 gross). The reasons also refer to a 10% uplift under s.207A TULR(C)A 1992, but the extracted final order is not arithmetically consistent on the uplifted figures. | Upheld | — | £2,242 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found no rolled-up holiday pay and held that the claimant had accrued holiday entitlement on a zero-hours basis. It calculated pro rata entitlement under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and awarded £1,215 net. | Upheld | — | £1,215 |
| Breach of contract | One week's notice pay was awarded as damages after the tribunal rejected the respondent's theft-based reason for withholding notice pay. | Upheld | — | £245 |
| Other | Section 38 Employment Act 2002 award of two weeks' pay for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars under s.1 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £491 |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.104 ERA 1996
- Mennell v Newell & Wright
- Spaceman v ISS Mediclean
- s.98 ERA 1996
- BHS v Burchell
- Orr v Milton Keynes Council
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd
- s.86 ERA 1996
- Regulation 14 WTR 1998
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
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.