Case 4102817/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Kerry Miller v Ms Megan MacKay — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102817/2023
- Decision date
- 5 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Kerry Miller
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the respondent was Ms Megan MacKay trading as Lumins Studio and corrected the respondent designation accordingly. It accepted that the claimant had a signed written contract which had been varied so that hours were variable, and it rejected Ms MacKay's suggestion that the written contract had been displaced by an oral agreement creating a zero-hours arrangement with no obligation to offer or accept work.
On the notice pay claim, the tribunal relied on clause 52 of the contract, which provided for four weeks' notice by the employer. It found the claimant had not been given any notice of termination, so that part of the claim succeeded. Because the claimant worked variable hours and had variable earnings, the tribunal averaged her earnings and found an average monthly wage of £187.33, which it awarded in respect of the four weeks' notice claim.
The claim for statutory sick pay was dismissed because the claimant did not earn enough to qualify for SSP. The respondent's counterclaim for compensation, said to arise from the claimant not fulfilling 29 hours per week, was also dismissed because the tribunal had already found that the contract had been varied so that weekly hours were variable.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for four weeks' notice pay under clause 52 of the written contract. The tribunal accepted the written contract, rejected the argument that it had been displaced by an oral zero-hours arrangement, and found no notice was given. | Upheld | — | £187 |
| Other | Claim for one week statutory sick pay. The tribunal dismissed it because the claimant did not earn enough to qualify for SSP. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's counterclaim for compensation based on the claimant allegedly not working 29 hours per week. It was dismissed after the tribunal found the parties had agreed variable hours. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £187
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.