Mr T Ogg (Counsel) Also assisted by a Spanish interpreter For the v Ms J David (lay representative) — 2023

The tribunal found that Ms Hodgkins was Ms Munich's employer from 12 July 2019. It accepted the offer of engagement prepared through Home Organisers, which named Ms Hodgkins as employer, set a gross annual salary of £38,776.44, provided for 28 days' paid leave including bank holidays, and contemplated paid overtime. The tribunal found Ms Munich accepted those terms by starting work, and that a binding contract arose despite the offer being conditional on documents that were not all provided.

After Mr Riftin died on 22 May 2020, the tribunal found Ms Hodgkins did not make clear that Ms Munich's status had changed. It preferred Ms Munich's evidence that Ms Hodgkins reassured her nothing had changed, and found that Ms Munich continued working as a nanny and housekeeper, including weekend work, while Ms Hodgkins made intermittent payments. The tribunal rejected Ms Hodgkins's case that the arrangement was only informal support in return for accommodation and food. It also found that the January 2020 draft contract naming Mr Riftin as employer did not change the position because Ms Munich did not sign it and had already been employed by Ms Hodgkins.

The tribunal held that Ms Munich remained employed during phase 3 when she was in Colombia. It found she was effectively on annual leave and then sick leave, that neither side had taken steps to terminate the employment, and that Ms Hodgkins remained her employer when she returned to the UK on 26 January 2022. On that basis, the tribunal found Ms Hodgkins had failed to pay the contractual salary and overtime due, implied a term that overtime would be paid at £8.33 net per hour, and held that the repeated shortfalls in phase 2 amounted to unlawful deductions from wages within the time limits under section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal also found Ms Munich was entitled to four weeks' contractual notice and had received no notice at all. It found Ms Hodgkins dismissed her by failing to tell her when she could resume work after her return, and held that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was redundancy. The holiday pay complaint was withdrawn at the remedy hearing on 12 December 2023 and struck out. The judgment left quantification of the monetary awards to the later remedy hearing.