Claimant v Agincare (Somerset) Limited

The tribunal found that the claimant was contracted to work 11 hours per week on Tuesdays and Thursdays, not on a zero hours contract as the respondent believed. The respondent wrongly cancelled her shifts on 30 April and 2 May 2024 without payment. As she was entitled to be paid for those shifts under her contract, the failure to pay constituted an unauthorised deduction from wages.

Both parties agreed that the claimant remained employed by the respondent. As she had not been dismissed, she was not entitled to a redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996.

The claimant's employment was continuing and there was no evidence that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The claim was therefore not well-founded.

The tribunal found that when proceedings began, the claimant had not received a written statement of changes to her employment particulars following her transfer from the Day Club to the Home. The respondent was in breach of its duty under section 4(1) ERA. Given the respondent's size and resources, and the lack of proper records, the tribunal awarded four weeks' pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002.