Case 4104896/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Lee v Represented by:10 Mrs C Lee - Mother Principal Trading Group — 2024
- Case reference
- 4104896/2024
- Decision date
- 15 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Lee
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss R Lee had worked for Principal Trading Group since 2017 making home baking for the cafe. She had Aspergers, reduced her hours to one 3-hour day a week in 2020, and the tribunal found there was no written contract or any clear verbal agreement that she was employed on a zero-hours basis. After the business changed hands, her rota hours fell away in late 2023 and she was not given shifts in January 2024; when she queried this, the respondent said no shifts were available and later asserted in a 10 April 2024 letter that she was engaged on a zero-hours basis.
The tribunal held that removing her from the rota and maintaining that position amounted to dismissal under s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996. It said that, if that analysis were wrong, the respondent's conduct was in any event a fundamental breach supporting constructive dismissal under s.95(1)(c). The dismissal was unfair under s.98 ERA 1996 because the respondent had not shown a potentially fair reason and had followed no fair procedure. The claimant also succeeded on breach of contract because she was dismissed without notice, but the tribunal made no separate notice-pay award because that loss overlapped with the wages already compensated in the unfair dismissal award.
The Equality Act complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence that the reduction in hours or rota treatment was because of disability, no disability-related comments, no comparator evidence, and no factual basis for the alleged PCP said to require meetings or changes to be agreed without written support. It therefore dismissed the direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and reasonable adjustments complaints, and it did not need to decide whether the claimant met the Equality Act definition of disability. Remedy consisted of a basic award of £218.82 and a compensatory award of £575.18, including a 15% ACAS uplift, together with a separate s.38 Employment Act 2002 award of £62.52 for failure to provide written terms.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed when the respondent stopped giving her work and relied on a rejected zero-hours explanation; it held the dismissal was unfair under s.98 ERA 1996 and, alternatively, that the facts also met s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £794 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed without notice and therefore in breach of contract, but it made no separate notice-pay award because that period was already included in the unfair dismissal loss-of-wages calculation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was dismissed because there was no evidence that the reduction in hours or removal from the rota was because of disability, and no disability-related comments or comparator evidence. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim of discrimination arising from disability was dismissed because the tribunal found no evidence that any treatment was because of something arising in consequence of the claimant's Aspergers. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found no factual basis for the alleged PCP about meetings or changes to contract/working arrangements without written support, so the duty was not engaged. | Dismissed | Disability |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £857
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £219
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £575
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
19 references- s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996
- Sothern v Franks Charlesly & Co
- Leeman v Johnson Gibbons Tools Ltd
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- ACAS Code of Practice
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Madarassy v Nomura International
- Bahl v The Law Society
- Igen v Wong
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- HM Prison Service v Johnson
- O'Hanlon v Revenue and Customs Comrs
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.