Claimant v Deeside Cuisine Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent had dismissed the claimant for operational reasons - failure to inform a customer of wait time, failure to issue a cash refund, and suspected muting of the telephone - none of which were influenced by the claimant's age. The respondent proved on the balance of probabilities that age was not a factor in any way whatsoever in the dismissal decision.
The claim that the respondent discriminated by not providing a written statement of particulars failed. The tribunal found that all zero hours workers, regardless of age (including those aged 61), were not provided with statements due to the respondent's misunderstanding of legal requirements, not because of the claimant's age.
Withdrawn by the claimant after it was confirmed that sums due for notice pay and holiday pay had been paid.
This claim was dismissed at an earlier stage, prior to the final hearing.
Facts
The claimant, aged 16, was employed by a fish and chip restaurant/takeaway on a zero hours contract in her first job. On 23 February 2025, during a busy shift, she failed to inform a walk-in customer of the expected 20-minute wait time and did not immediately refund cash payment when requested. The customer complained on social media about poor service and alleged rudeness by a director. The claimant was dismissed by email on 26 February 2025 without a disciplinary process, with the respondent believing she had been trained on procedures, had muted the telephone, and was not capable of performing the role.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the age discrimination claims. Although a prima facie case was established based on the lack of written contract, procedural failures, and use of age-related language, the respondent proved that age was not a factor in any way in the dismissal or failure to provide terms. The dismissal was based on the claimant's perceived failure to follow training and procedures, which would have applied to an employee of any age.
Practical note
Even where procedural unfairness and poor treatment of a young worker establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, the claim will fail if the employer proves the same decision would have been made regardless of age based on genuine operational concerns.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4101045/2025
- Decision date
- 19 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Takeaway service worker
- Service
- 6 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor