ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Undefended Cases No: 8000327/2023 and 4103917/2023 Combined for the Purposes of Final Hearing and, Heard at Edinburgh on the th of September 2023 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Ms Anna Seymour v , In Person Fun Science — 2023

The case was heard at Edinburgh as an undefended final hearing because the respondent did not lodge a response form. Ms Seymour gave evidence on oath; the tribunal found her to be a credible and reliable witness and accepted her evidence. It found that she contracted with Fun Science on 7 November 2022 to perform personal work, was a worker within section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and was paid at rates of £20 gross per lead session, £15 gross per assistant session, and £20 per assistant session at Edinburgh Academy.

On the wage claim, the tribunal found that Ms Seymour delivered lessons in the weeks beginning 17 March and 25 March 2023, submitted timesheets on 5 April 2023, and was not paid for all work due. It held that withholding payment due for those weeks amounted to an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the 1996 Act and awarded £115 gross, payable without deduction of PAYE or employee National Insurance. The reasons contain a reference at paragraph 25 to £115.5, but the formal order awards £115.

On the whistleblowing claim, the tribunal found that Ms Seymour's grievance of 8 June 2023 and her text of 12 June 2023 were qualifying and protected disclosures within section 43B(1)(b). It found that the respondent's telephone call and later email on 12 June 2023 were made in reaction to those disclosures and constituted unlawful detriments under section 47B. The tribunal accepted that those communications caused increased stress and injury to feelings, including a temporary increase in medication prescribed by her GP, and it assessed compensation at £1,000.

The tribunal also rejected the claim for notice pay. It found that Ms Seymour had decided on 12 June 2023 that she would no longer carry out work for the respondent, and that the respondent had not dismissed her or given notice determining the relationship. On that basis, it held that she had no entitlement to payment in lieu of notice whether in contract or under statute, and that claim was dismissed.