Claimant v Linda Meredith Ltd

The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but was a worker under section 230(3)(b). As unfair dismissal requires employee status, the claim failed and was dismissed.

The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of pursuing a claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The breach of contract claim regarding notice pay was predicated on the existence of an employment relationship which did not exist, so the claim failed.

The breach of contract claim in respect of the claimant's notice period failed because the tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee but a worker, and the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order is confined to employees only.

The tribunal found that the comparator Stefan did not work for the same legal entity and therefore his material circumstances were not the same as the claimant's in accordance with section 23 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal also found no evidence to infer that there was any difference of treatment on the grounds of the claimant's sex.

The tribunal found insufficient evidence to draw an inference that any request to keep jewellery under the tunic was based on religion rather than health and safety reasons. An alleged incident in March 2022 was not in the list of issues and was significantly out of time. The tribunal found the respondent's policy on jewellery was legitimate, proportionate and justified.

The tribunal found that the respondent's requirement to keep jewellery under tunics was a corporate policy based on health and safety and common brand image, not an act of indirect discrimination. The policy was found to be a legitimate, proportionate and justified approach.

The tribunal found that the claimant was a worker within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore entitled to accrued holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The claim succeeded as an unauthorised deduction from wages pursuant to section 23 of the ERA.