In person For the v Otium Services & Facilities Limited — 2023

The respondent did not attend the hearing. The tribunal refused the respondent's postponement application because notice had been sent to the email address previously provided for correspondence, there was no bounce-back or alternative contact information, and the judge proceeded under rule 34 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and the overriding objective to avoid delay.

The claimant was a part-time cleaner. The judge accepted her evidence that she had given notice on 10 July 2022 to expire on 29 July 2022, and that she was due to show a replacement cleaner the site on 12 July 2022. During that notice period, the new manager told her that her hours would be reduced to two hours a day. The tribunal accepted the claimant's account that the contract did not permit the employer to vary her hours unilaterally and that this amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract.

The claimant accepted that breach by resigning immediately. The tribunal treated the unpaid notice-period pay as two heads of claim: 7 days as an unauthorised deduction from wages and the remaining 14 days as breach of contract. Using 4 hours per day at £9.50 per hour, the tribunal assessed that part of the award at £798 gross.

The tribunal also found that the claimant had accrued but not taken annual leave on termination. It found that the relevant holiday year began on 1 June 2022, that the claimant had accrued 20 hours' leave by the end of employment, that she had already taken 8 hours, and that 12 hours therefore remained payable. That was calculated at £114 gross. The tribunal recorded that the respondent had already paid £423.25 and could give credit for that sum before paying the balance, with tax and NIC to be accounted for in the usual way.