EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000162/2023 (V) Heid at Aberdeen on December 2023 Employment Judge J M Hendry Miss Vasilica Lavinia Marin v Represented by, Mr D Purdie, Solicitor Apardion Limited — 2024

The tribunal heard a preliminary issue only: whether the claimant had sufficient continuous employment to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant said she had not resigned and that her zero-hours engagement with the respondent continued through a period when she took full-time work elsewhere; the respondent said her text on 7 March 2022 amounted to a resignation and that there was no contract bridging the gap until she started permanent work on 22 May 2022.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been working under a zero-hours arrangement and that she had remained on the respondent's books in a practical sense, but it found that the text messages in March 2022 were consistent with her leaving the respondent's employment. It considered the wording used by the claimant, including her reference to needing a full-time job, starting work at the Plaza Hotel, and offering to cover only if needed on Sundays and Mondays, and concluded that this language, read in context, pointed to a parting of the ways.

Applying section 210(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and treating the wording of the resignation in light of Southern v Franks Charlesley & Co and Graham Group Plc v Garrett, the tribunal found that there was no mutuality of obligation between 7 March and May 2022. It regarded the fact that the claimant did not confirm her days off at the hotel, did not chase further assignments, and did not expect work from the respondent during that period as supporting the conclusion that her employment had ended.

Because the claimant could not show two years' continuous service, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it. The tribunal noted that the respondent had not clarified the claimant's status more robustly at the outset or when she left in March 2022, but that observation did not alter the jurisdictional outcome.