Miss A M Murray v Represented by: Mr J Murray MS and RK Ltd — 2023

The tribunal found that Miss A M Murray was an employee, not merely a worker, and had sufficient qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. It accepted that she had worked regularly at The Admirals since shortly after her 14th birthday, that the arrangement was weekly rather than intermittent, and that there was mutuality of obligation even though there was no written contract or payslips.

On the reason for dismissal, the tribunal found the respondent's explanation confused and unsupported by contemporaneous records. The dismissal message referred to a lack of progress, no-shows/absences, failure to attend training, and the claimant's text asking for clarification of her duties. The tribunal accepted that "lack of progress" was the nearest identifiable reason and treated it as a potentially fair capability reason, but it found that no warning process, disciplinary hearing, investigation, or appeal took place.

The tribunal held that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair and outside the band of reasonable responses. It found that the claimant had not been given written or verbal warnings, that the alleged incidents in March and April were isolated and had not been acted on at the time, and that the claimant's August text was a reasonable request for guidance rather than a fair ground for dismissal.

On remedy, the tribunal rejected a Polkey reduction because the evidence did not justify any finding that the claimant would probably have been dismissed fairly in any event. It found that she had mitigated her loss by obtaining further work in mid-November, rejected contributory fault, and awarded £300 for 12 weeks' lost pay, £400 for loss of statutory rights, and a basic award of £37.50 based on three years' service at £25 per week.