Cases2225883/2024

Claimant v Churchill Contract Services

15 September 2025Before Employment Judge WoodheadLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the dismissal was for the potentially fair reason that the claimant could not continue to work in the position without contravention of Working Time Regulations (WTR Reg 6(1)). The dismissal was also barred by common law illegality because the claimant knowingly concealed her second full-time job in breach of night worker restrictions, and enforcement would be contrary to public policy protecting health and safety.

Redundancy Payfailed

The tribunal determined the claimant was not dismissed by reason of redundancy. The respondent had achieved necessary workforce reductions through voluntary redundancy. The claimant did not apply for voluntary redundancy and was not at risk of redundancy when dismissed. The reason for dismissal was breach of Working Time Regulations, not redundancy.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The tribunal held that common law illegality prevented the claimant from enforcing the contract to recover pay during her suspension. The claimant deliberately concealed her dual employment in breach of WTR Reg 6(1), which prohibits night workers from exceeding 8 hours average in 24 hours. The respondent acted reasonably by suspending the lower-paid contract to ensure legal compliance.

Wrongful Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found common law illegality prevented the claimant from claiming notice pay. The claimant could not lawfully work her notice period without breaching WTR Reg 6(1). The contract was illegal from inception due to her pre-existing Deutsche Bank employment. The claimant had deliberately concealed her working arrangements and refused to accept part-time hours that would have complied with the regulations.

Facts

The claimant worked two full-time jobs: a day shift at Deutsche Bank (8am-5pm) and a night shift at Houses of Parliament (10pm-6am), totalling 77.5 hours per week. She deliberately concealed the dual employment from both employers, knowing it breached Working Time Regulations restricting night workers to 8 hours average in 24. When both contracts transferred to the respondent via TUPE in May 2024, the respondent discovered the arrangement, suspended the claimant without pay from the HoP contract on 25 July 2024, and ultimately dismissed her from that contract on 28 October 2024 after she refused to accept a part-time role that would comply with the law. A redundancy exercise occurred but the claimant scored highly and was not at risk; 19 voluntary redundancies were accepted.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. The dismissal was not for redundancy but for the potentially fair reason that continued employment would breach Working Time Regulations. Common law illegality prevented the claimant from enforcing the contract for pay, notice, or unfair dismissal because she knowingly concealed the illegal working arrangement, enforcement would be contrary to public policy protecting worker health and safety, and the contract was prohibited by statute (WTR Reg 6(1)) from its inception given her pre-existing Deutsche Bank employment.

Practical note

An employee who deliberately conceals dual employment that breaches Working Time Regulations (particularly night worker limits) will be barred by illegality from enforcing the contract, including for unfair dismissal, notice pay, and wages during suspension, even where the employer later discovers the breach post-TUPE transfer.

Legal authorities cited

Barber v RJB Mining (UK) Ltd [1999] IRLR 308Okedina v Chikale [2019] EWCA Civ 1393Enfield Technical Services v Payne [2007] IRLR 840Bateman v Asda Stores Ltd [2010] IRLR 370R (FBU) v South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority [2018] IRLR 717

Statutes

Working Time Regulations 1998 Reg 28ERA 1996 s.86Working Time Regulations 1998 Reg 29BWorking Time Regulations 1998 Reg 29ERA 1996 s.87ERA 1996 s.88ERA 1996 s.91ERA 1996 s.93ERA 1996 s.98ERA 1996 s.135

Case details

Case number
2225883/2024
Decision date
15 September 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
Cleaning Operative
Service
16 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No