Mr D Renford v Mitie Limited — 2020

At an open preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether the claimant's claims should be struck out or made subject to a deposit order. The claimant was employed by the respondent as a security officer on a zero hours contract and had brought claims including unfair dismissal, breach of contract and unpaid wages.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not been dismissed when the claim was issued and had not resigned by the date of the hearing. His employment continued, and the disciplinary outcome had been a final written warning. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The breach of contract claim, including the contractual sick pay element, was also dismissed because such a claim in the employment tribunal required termination of the contract, which had not occurred.

The unpaid wages claim concerned the claimant's argument that he should have been paid £9.75 per hour because other Relief Support Officers were paid that rate. The tribunal had serious doubts about the merits because the claimant could not point to a document showing entitlement to the same rate as others, but declined to strike out the claim given the claimant's lack of understanding and the absence of documents he wished to rely on. The tribunal made a £20 deposit order and also found the wages claim was in time, while noting that underpaid wages could not be claimed further back than two years before issue.