Mrs B Glanton v Mrs L Grogans (T/A Curiosity Sweets Ltd) and 2 others — 2019

The tribunal found that Mrs B Glanton's employer was Mrs L Grogans, the first respondent, rather than Curiosity Sweets Ltd. In reaching that conclusion it applied the approach in Autoclenz, Dynasystems and McVeigh and looked at the evidence as a whole. It gave weight to the oral arrangements made when the claimant started work in February 2011, the fact that Mrs Grogans ran the businesses and instructed staff, and the way the claimant was paid on her last day. The written statement of main terms, P45 and P60 were relevant but not conclusive, and they did not displace the tribunal's conclusion on the true employer.

On the notice issue, the tribunal held that the claimant had seven years' continuous service by 31 December 2018 and so was contractually entitled to seven weeks' notice under s.86 ERA 1996. It accepted that the claimant signed a letter on 31 December 2018 referring to two weeks' notice being accepted, but found that document alone was not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to amount to a waiver because it used the wrong company name and referred to a company that no longer existed under that name.

The tribunal nevertheless found that the claimant had orally agreed on 20 December 2018 to waive any additional notice after Mrs Grogans said she could not afford it and later said other employees were accepting the same arrangement. It held that this agreement was clear, certain and unambiguous, and that the claimant's later feeling that the arrangement was unfair did not amount to legal duress because she had a real alternative of pursuing a breach of contract claim. In light of that waiver, the claim for damages for failure to give sufficient contractual notice, or payment in lieu of notice, was dismissed and the tribunal did not go on to determine remedy.