Claimant entitled to one month notice pay as well as outstanding holiday pay. The contract of employment had some contradictory terms, and the Tribunal interpreted it in the claimant’s favour.

The claimant commenced employment as an oyster harvester in February 2023. The remuneration agreed was a minimum of £52.00 per day with £13.00 per hour for work on shore and £11.00 for work in the shed. The last day of work was 21st June 2023.

The claimant described the work as zero hours and that, due to the nature of the business being affected by tidal movements, it may be necessary to work Saturday, Sundays and nights.  During harvesting the claimant was expected to work 4 hours per day and expected to work 8 hours per day when preparing the oysters for export.

The issue arose at the end of his working relationship with the respondent with the claimant arguing that he was entitled to one month’s notice instead of one week’s pay in lieu which he received.  He also claimed unpaid holiday pay.   The claimant sought to receive this payment from the respondent through messages but was unsuccessful.  In the end, the respondent messaged the claimant stating ‘please do not message me’ with a laughing face emoji.

The issue relating to the notice pay was the claimant’s contract which stated that the notice was based upon length of service with it stating that more than one month, but less than two years allowed for one week.  However, another term of the same contract stated that during the probationary period (which came after the 3-month induction period) the respondent could terminate the employment without explanation by giving one month written notice or one month pay in lieu.

The claimant stated that it was the latter term that applied as he had been dismissed rather than resigning.  This was evidenced by a message from the respondent stating that ‘part-time’ (the claimant) was no longer required as a full-time permanent had been recruited.

The Tribunal agreed with the claimant’s evidence and found that he was entitled to one month payment.  This allowed for a payment of £467.61. Additionally, he was awarded £138.81 for holiday pay.

The sums in this judgment are relatively low but still important to the claimant involved.  The message exchange between the claimant and respondent was initially cordial but that quickly eroded when the claimant sought to rely upon his rights. The contractual provisions govern the relationship and having differences within the same document causes confusion. But in this situation, as the claimant was able to prove he was dismissed, it was held to be one month rather than one week notice. The learning point is to ensure that contracts of employment are clear, intelligible and that the respondent is aware of the ramifications of them when making decision affecting employees.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website: 
https://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/