ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001537/2024 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on December 2024 and January 2025 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Kieron King v All Seasons Philipburn Ltd — 2024

The claimant began work for All Seasons Philipburn Ltd on 26 July 2024 as a team leader at Philipburn House Hotel. His contract stated that he was on a zero-hours basis and would be paid only for hours worked at £12.60 per hour. The tribunal also considered the respondent’s flexible shift system policy, which said that late shifts could be shortened or lengthened depending on customer demand and that staff were generally paid for the quarter-hour blocks for which they were signed in, subject to scrutiny of hours claimed.

The claimant said that he had worked more hours than he had been paid for and claimed £832.33 for 78.75 hours. The respondent accepted and paid some hours after the claim was lodged, including £159 for recorded hours on 1 August and further sums for later shifts, but it disputed the accuracy of a number of the claimant’s clockings and said he had not always worked the hours claimed. The tribunal reviewed the evidence day by day and noted particular concerns about the claimant’s explanations for late departures, an unexplained short attendance on 11 August, and the clockings on 18 August, where the recorded hours suggested almost 24 hours on duty.

Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that it was for the claimant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he had not been paid wages properly payable to him. It found that his evidence could not wholly be relied upon, referring to his dismissal for gross misconduct involving dishonesty, the vagueness of his answers, and the lack of clarity in how he calculated the sum said to be outstanding. Although the tribunal observed that the respondent might have investigated the clockings earlier, it concluded that the claimant had not shown that he suffered any financial loss from unpaid wages properly payable by the respondent. The claim was therefore dismissed.