Ms E Guthrie v Represented by Mr B McKinlay Solicitor Deeside Cuisine Ltd — 2025

Ms E Guthrie was employed by Deeside Cuisine Ltd from around August 2024, aged 16 and on zero-hours terms. The tribunal found that she was not given a statement of particulars of employment compliant with section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, although she had been given an email setting out basic terms and a safety handbook. The respondent also treated all of its zero-hours workers the same way, including older staff, while permanent staff had written statements. The separate breach of contract claim was later withdrawn after the respondent confirmed that notice pay and holiday pay had been paid.

The age discrimination claim arose from the events of 23 February 2025, when a customer complained during a busy takeaway shift about waiting time and then sought a refund. The tribunal found that the claimant did not warn the customer about the likely wait, did not complete the refund before the customer left, and may have muted the takeaway phone. On 26 February 2025 the directors and the supervisor decided to dismiss her without any disciplinary procedure or formal investigation involving her, and the dismissal was communicated by email. Her appeal was heard in March 2025 and rejected.

Applying section 13 Equality Act 2010 and the burden of proof provisions, the tribunal held that the claimant had established a prima facie case, relying on matters including her age, the absence of a written statement, the lack of disciplinary process, and references by the respondent to younger workers. The respondent then satisfied the tribunal that age played no part in either the failure to provide a statement or the dismissal. The reasons accepted by the tribunal were the respondent's belief that the claimant had not followed procedures, had not handled the complaint and refund correctly, and had muted the phone. The tribunal also found that the failure to issue statements and to use a formal process affected zero-hours workers of all ages and reflected a misunderstanding of employment law and practice rather than age.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the discrimination claim and no remedy arose. It noted that the dismissal was harsh and that the lack of process was surprising given the claimant's age and that it was her first job, but those points did not show that age was a factor in the decisions complained of.