Case 4108024/2020 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4108024/20205 In the Employment Tribunal (Scotland) at Edinburgh Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No. 4108024/2020 issued following Open Preliminary Hearing conducted on Cloud Based Video Platform at Edinburgh on May, June and & September 2021 with deliberation on October 2021 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mrs W Graham v Represented by Mr E Obi, HR Professional Denburn Funeral Service Ltd and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 4108024/2020
- Decision date
- 17 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
4 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4108024/20205 In the Employment Tribunal (Scotland) at Edinburgh Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No. 4108024/2020 issued following Open Preliminary Hearing conducted on Cloud Based Video Platform at Edinburgh on May, June and & September 2021 with deliberation on October 2021 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mrs W Graham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on employment status and time bar, not a merits determination. The tribunal held that the claimant remained an employee of Denburn Funeral Service Ltd under section 230 ERA 1996 for the period 13 August 2020 to 2 October 2020. It found that the respondent had not proved an express consensual variation on 13 August 2020 to replace the employment relationship with self-employment. The tribunal accepted that the claimant agreed a change to remuneration to £250 per funeral, but held that the surrounding factors, including PAYE/P45 steps and invoicing, were not fundamentally inconsistent with continued employment.
In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal relied on findings that the claimant's duties, working pattern, and relationship to the respondent's business were materially unchanged before and after 13 August 2020. It found that she continued to provide personal service, remained under sufficient control, and that the other arrangements relied on by the respondent did not displace the existing contract of employment. The tribunal also held that the effective date of termination was 2 October 2020.
On jurisdiction, the tribunal held that the ET1 presented on 29 December 2020 was in time after early conciliation, so the unfair dismissal complaint, notice pay, holiday pay, and arrears of pay claims were timeously presented and could proceed. It also held that the ET1 gave sufficient notice of a harassment related to sex complaint under section 26 Equality Act 2010, but only so far as it was founded on acts or omissions after 30 September 2020. The issue whether earlier allegations formed part of a continuing act for time-bar purposes was reserved for final hearing under section 123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal made no findings on liability for dismissal, wages, holiday pay, or discrimination, and no remedy was awarded at this stage. It directed the parties to write in within 42 days with proposals for further procedure, including whether the case should be listed for a final hearing on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Open preliminary hearing only; the tribunal held that the claimant remained an employee of the respondent from 13 August 2020 to 2 October 2020 and that the unfair dismissal complaint, including constructive dismissal, was timeously presented. The merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim; the tribunal held that it was timeously presented and within jurisdiction, but made no merits finding and directed further procedure. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the holiday pay claim was timeously presented and within jurisdiction, but did not determine entitlement or amount at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay claim; the tribunal held it was timeously presented and within jurisdiction, subject to proof of entitlement and amount at a later hearing. The judgment refers to section 13 ERA 1996 and, failing that, breach of contract. | Other | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held the complaint was timeously presented insofar as it was founded on acts or omissions after 30 September 2020; the earlier time-bar/continuing-act issue was reserved for final hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 230(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- personal service, control and mutuality of obligation
- section 123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010
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.