Mrs P Gascoigne v Agincare (Somerset) Limited — 2025

The Tribunal found that Mrs Gascoigne transferred with the Home under TUPE on 29 April 2024, but she did not at any relevant point have a zero-hours contract. It accepted her evidence that she had worked a regular pattern of 11 hours a week on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and preferred that evidence to the Respondent's position based on the Employee Liability Information and later HR assumptions. It also found that the written contract historically issued to her had not been updated when her place of work changed to the Home.

On that basis, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had wrongly treated her as a zero-hours worker and had not paid her for the shifts cancelled on 30 April 2024 and 2 May 2024. Applying section 13 ERA 1996 and the principle cited from Beveridge v KLM UK Ltd, it concluded that only those two missed shifts were payable, because she had not made herself available for work after 2 May 2024. It therefore upheld the unlawful deductions from wages complaint and awarded £125.84 gross.

The redundancy payment complaint was dismissed because both parties agreed that her employment had not ended, so there had been no dismissal by reason of redundancy within section 163 ERA 1996. The holiday pay complaint was also dismissed because the Tribunal had no evidence that regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 had been breached. Separately, the Tribunal found that when proceedings began the Respondent was in breach of its duty to provide written particulars reflecting the changed employment terms, and it considered it just and equitable to award four weeks' gross pay, being £503.36, under section 38 Employment Act 2002.