Mr Arshad v Kingdom Services Group Ltd: 2303152/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 May 2023 |
| Date | 18 May 2023 |
| Citation | 2303152/2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 09 June 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Redundancy |
Case No. 2303152/2022
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
claimant: Mr Arshad
Respondent: Kingdom Services Group Limited
HELD AT: London South (by CVP) ON: 14-15 March 2023
BEFORE: Employment Judge Hart
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Ms Evans-Jarvis
LIABILITY JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The claimant’s claim for redundancy pay arising out of the termination of the PGS
assignment on 8 February 2022 is upheld. That means that he is entitled to
redundancy pay, the amount to be determined at a remedy hearing on 1 August
2023.
2. The tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal
or constructive unfair dismissal because there was no dismissal.
3. The claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction of wages between 8 February and 25
July 2022 is not upheld, because the contact that the claimant was employed on
at the material time was a zero-hour contract.
REASONS
INTRODUCTION
1. The claimant was a security guard employed by the respondent on the same
assignment for 13 years. This assignment was terminated on the 8 February
2022, and the claimant claims redundancy pay arising out of this termination.
Case No. 2303152/2022
2
The claimant also claims constructive dismissal arising out of the subsequent
failure to provide him with work, pay wages, respond to his grievance and / or
due to a breach of trust and confidence. The respondent states that the claimant
has not been dismissed, and in the alternative any dismissal was for a refusal to
comply with a mobility clause (some other substantial reason). The claimant’s
claim for unlawful deduction of wages is based on the fact that with the exception
of one day, he was not paid from the 8 February 2022. The respondent states
that the claimant was on a zero-hour contract and therefore was not entitled to
any payment.
THE HEARING
2. The parties and their witnesses attended by CVP. They are thanked for their
assistance and representation during the hearing.
3. It was confirmed at the outset of the hearing that no reasonable adjustments
were required by either party.
4. I was provided with a joint agreed hearing bundle of 306 pages, the references
to page numbers in this judgment are to the pages in this bundle. I was also
provided with written witnesses statements.
5. I discussed with the parties the order of evidence. The respondent proposed that
it provided evidence first and that the claimant went second. The claimant was
asked for his preference and he agreed with this sequence.
6. The claimant gave evidence on his own behalf. The respondent called Mr
Crawley (Contract Manager) and Ms Batters (Colleague Centre Advisor) as
witnesses. I provided the claimant, who was not represented, with assistance in
formulating questions for cross-examination.
7. On completion of the evidence both parties made oral submissions. Judgment
was reserved.
CLAIMS / ISSUES
8. The parties agreed that the claims and issues to be determined by me were as
follows:
8.1 Was the claimant employed on a zero-hour contract?
8.2 Was the contract subject to a mobility clause?
Both these questions would require consideration of whether any express
term reflected the true relationship between the parties and / or whether
there was an implied term of custom and practice?
8.3 Dismissal
(a) Whether the claimant’s contract had been terminated? There has been
no express termination, therefore I will need to consider whether there
has been termination by conduct. The burden of proof is on the
To continue reading
Request your trial