Vague, contradictory, or poorly drafted contracts can cost employers dearly, and Northern Ireland tribunals are making that crystal clear.

Employment Law at 11 regulars Christine Quinn of Legal Island and Seamus McGranaghan of O’Reilly Stewart Solicitors are joined this month by special guest Jason Elliott BL for a focused session unpacking recent decisions that show exactly how unclear wording can backfire.

We break down:

•             O’Neill & Durkan v Belfast HSC Trust – Contract void for uncertainty, holiday pay awarded.
•             Cassidy v Doma (NI) Ltd – Confusing notice clauses? Claimant wins one month’s notice pay.
•             Sweeney v Western Urgent Care Ltd – Pay basis unclear? Unlawful deduction claim upheld.
•             McKay v Adatar Ltd – Missing clarity on notice and holiday pay? Another win for the claimant.

You’ll leave with:

•             Real-world examples of what not to do in contract drafting
•             Steps to tighten up your employment terms and conditions
•             Insights on how tribunals approach ambiguity

Don’t wait until you’re in front of a tribunal, get your contracts right from the start.

Please note that the employment law matters discussed in this webinar apply primarily to Northern Ireland.

Transcript:

Christine: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Employment Law at 11, sponsored by MCS Group. My name is Christine Quinn. I'm from Legal-Island. I'm a Knowledge Partner here. I'll be facilitating today's session. I'm joined, as always, by Seamus McGranaghan of O'Reilly Stewart Solicitors. And today, Seamus and I are joined by special guest Jason Elliott.

Jason is a barrister. He's the Associate Head of the University of Ulster Law School and a contributor to the Legal-Island Hub. So Jason provides the case law reviews for our Hub. Today, we've picked out four Northern Irish cases which illustrate how and why you need to clear employment contracts, but more on that later.

I know many of you are Hub subscribers, and so you'll be very familiar with Jason's case law reviews, but for those of you who aren't, we'll be providing the four cases we'll be discussing with you today free of charge for a limited period so you can get a taste of just how useful the case reviews are.

Hopefully, like me, you'll find them really straightforward and easy to understand. Jason does not use legalese, so you really get to the crux of the matter and what you need to be doing in your workplace on the basis of these cases.

At the end, please do stick around as well. I have a short video to show you which demonstrates the new and improved Legal-Island Hub. So stick around for that.

Thanks, as always, to our sponsors, MCS Group. MCS help people find careers that match their skill sets perfectly, as well as supporting employers to build high-performing businesses by connecting them with the most talented candidates in the market. If you're interested in finding out how MCS can help you, head to www.mcsgroup.jobs.

Now, as we have Jason here today, we're not going to have any polls because we want to get in as much case law talk as we possibly can. So Jason, I'm going to hand over to you for our first case, which is the Durkan case, if you want to tell us a little bit about that.

Jason: Thanks, Christine. In terms of this first case of O'Neill & Durkan v Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, I'll give a bit of a brief background, actual background, and then go into what the legal issues were and then what the ramifications or the sort of key takeaways that we can take from the case and then put into our practice.

And that really is the focus of the case law reviews on the Hub. It's about what you can really take away from those contemporary cases and then embed into your practice. Sort of the dos and don'ts, so to speak.

So in the Durkan case, the claimants were GPs, and they provided the out-of-hours service that most of us are probably familiar with, at least at some point in our lives, where you have to make a call and go and see an out-of-hours GP.

And there are two different types of GP that were operating this service. There are salaried GPs who receive their salary, and then you have the claimants who were sessional GPs. So they were essentially paid per shift.

Up until April 2018, those sessional GPs were regarded as being self-employed. However, when this was reviewed by HMRC for national insurance and income tax purposes, it was found that they were actually employees, or at least for that purpose in terms of income tax and national insurance contributions. And that, then, led to a new contractual position between the Trust and sessional GPs, including the claimants in this case.

The issue that then arose was the new contract had outlined essentially the same terms and conditions, and the sessional GPs were then making this claim for holiday pay, which they hadn't received when they were self-employed but were still not receiving even though there had been this difference in their classification as a result of that investigation from HMRC.

So that's a very brief factual background, and then the headline claim there was whether these sessional GPs were entitled to the holiday pay.

Now, when we actually dive into the legal and factual issues into this case, it largely [inaudible 00:04:37] into the contractual relationship between the claimants and the Trust. And as a result of the general nature of their classification changing, what the Trust had was a process, and this process took over a year in terms of what way the contract would be set out for these sessional GPs.

This received quite a bit of criticism from the tribunal in relation to the process for creating this contract and the outcome. And there are a couple of matters that the tribunal really looked at in detail as to determining what the classification of the employees were or what the sessional GPs were, and what their entitlement was.

In terms of their classification, it was a fairly clear case in that they were termed as workers within this new contract, even though the respondents stated that they were actually still self-employed. So, that was one issue.

The contract also outlined those normal features that we would look at in terms of that employer-employee relationship or employer-worker relationship in terms of being subject to the disciplinary procedures that are outlined and the fact that the sessional GPs' pay was superannuable, for instance.

But in terms of, then, the issues going with holiday pay, the contract . . . and I want to be as nice as possible, but I'm quoting from the judgement . . . was that it was an absolute mess.

The reason for that, especially when we look at the holiday pay, is that there was one aspect of the contract that said that the holiday pay should be based upon 12.5% of their pay. And then at a later point, it said that there was to be a 12-week period which would be looked at, and then it would be paid back.

The tribunal made it very clear you can't have both. You can't have a situation in which you're paying it up front, and then another situation in which you're paying it in arrears. And they also outlined that rolled-up pay hadn't been allowed by the tribunal for some considerable time. So they could clearly see the issues that were arising there.

The tribunal, I guess, were scratching their head. "How do we interpret this contract, and how do we make a decision based on that contract?" And they actually came to the conclusion that they couldn't make a decision based upon that contract on its own and actually found that that contract was void for uncertainty.

So quite an explosive decision there to say, "Actually, you've written this contract, you've spent a year drafting this up, but actually it's void". And so the outcome that we then had was that they looked at it based upon the factual situation between the employer and the workers here, the sessional GPs, and found that actually they were entitled to their holiday pay.

So that claim was upheld. In terms of the actual figures, there would be a separate remedy hearing that would determine that. So that was the decision.

I guess where we take that forward is then what are the things that we learned from this decision? And I think the one thing is there needs to be a fine-tooth comb that goes through these contractual terms, and you really need to look at the contractual document as a whole to determine whether you have particular matters that may be contradicting one another.

That was essentially what we had here. There were two separate terms relating to the holiday pay which were in complete conflict with one another. And as a result of that, when an objective viewer, i.e. the tribunal in this situation, comes to view it, they have no basis to make a decision because they can't then decide which of those terms is to have preference over the other.

 It's really about looking at those holiday . . . I mean, holiday pay has been a big issue over the last number of years, and I'm sure many of those on the call will be aware of why that's the case in terms of some of our cases going to the Supreme Court from Northern Ireland. So really, it's a matter of relooking at those terms in terms of holiday pay, making sure that they're in compliance with the way the holiday pay law works, but also ensuring that there's clarity and consistency across those contracts.

Christine: I think what stands out for me, Jason, is perhaps what happened in this contract is there were tweaks made probably by different people coming in and going, "I'll just fix this wee bit, and I'll just fix that wee bit". But no one looked at it as a whole.

So probably the 12.5% was like, "Oh, someone read that somewhere. That's the way". And then someone else read, "Oh, it's 12 weeks". And then you do start to get a mismatch. So it is very worthwhile when you're making tweaks to look at the contract as a whole, isn't it, rather than just kind of tinkering round the edges with it.

Jason: Exactly. I mean, it was telling within the judgement that there was over a year spent in terms of how these contracts were to be drafted. And whilst it doesn't go into the detail, I assume there were a lot of hands on that contract or a lot of eyes on that contract in terms of how it was being drafted. The phrase "too many cooks spoil the broth" comes to mind.

Maybe it'll be the case that you have those differing views, and you try to keep everyone happy, and in the end nobody's happy. So there is a point where you have to have that clear, structured process and ensuring that there are checks in terms of those minor changes that you think are minor at that point, but may have actual ramifications later down the line when this contract is enforced.

Christine:  The decision was kind of an HMRC decision. These are workers for tax purposes. Is it possible to be a worker for tax purposes, and then an employment tribunal not to find you as a worker? Or do they tend to follow HMRC's lead on that, really?

Jason: Well, there are separate tests that have to be determined in relation to the tax law and then in relation to the employment status. In terms of the tribunal, the tribunal will look through the tests that we have for the classification based upon employment law rather than the tax law.

Now, one of those considerations that is looked at in terms of the employment law test is how that individual is treated for tax purposes. So it is a factor and can be quite a significant weighty factor in relation to the decision that's made. But there will be other things.

We see this within this judgement, that they look at the extent to which there's sort of control exercised by the employer. That was seen with the contract outlining that the disciplinary procedures and processes applied to the sessional GPs as it did to the salaried GPs, which then shows that there is that extent of control.

There are other features that would be looked at as well in terms of the right to substitute, for instance, and they would be looked at in relation to the sort of employment law test, if I put it that way, rather than the tax law test that would be looked at by HMRC.

Christine: Brilliant. Thanks very much, Jason. So I think my two takeaways from that case are really that contractual certainty matters. For a poorly-drafted contract, a tribunal can just put a red line through it and start to apply the statutory rules to it. So it is really important to get that right.

Secondly, holiday pay rates for workers. It's in the headlines a lot with Agnew, but you really do need to get to grips with it and go through the contract in its entirety, not just the bit that says holiday pay, because it might end up with wee bits and pieces throughout the contract that make it inconsistent. So just review the contract as a whole.

Thanks very much for that, Jason. As we go along, everyone, please do feel free to drop your questions in, and I will put them to Seamus and Jason as we go along.

So thanks, Jason. We'll move over to Seamus now. He's going to outline another case for us. Seamus, what's going on with this case?

Seamus: Well, Christine, I'm going to review the case of Leo Cassidy v Doma (NI) Ltd. This was a decision that was issued by the tribunal this year. The hearing of the case was in March 2025, and it was Judge Wimpress in the Employment Tribunal that dealt with this one.

It is an interesting case. It's a case that sits around, again, what looks like the good old favourites of notice pay and holiday pay when it comes to these tricky decisions that the tribunal ultimately have to make decisions in relation to.

And I think probably just sort of starting out is to say that the tribunal can be in a difficult position. It only has the documentation that has been provided to it, and it also has, then, any evidence that is furnished as well.

Interestingly, in this case and in the other case, these are both cases where the judge was sitting alone. It wasn't the panel, as you would normally see, a sort of panel of three. It was a judge sitting alone. In one of the cases, there had been some involvement from the respondent, but in both cases, the respondent didn't attend the hearing of the case itself.

So, this first case of Cassidy, Cassidy was the claimant. And interestingly, Cassidy worked as a part-time oyster harvester, and he worked on what was a zero-hours contract, as we would call it. I know that we're awaiting Good Employment Bill updates and all the rest around zero-hour contracts, but it was a zero-hours contract. And the reason for that was because of tidal movements that had been as a result of the oyster harvesting and things like that.

The issue arose around the termination of the claimant's contract, and there was a dispute over how much notice the claimant should be given and holiday pay.

Interestingly, the claimant had provided with a contract of employment, but there were two different aspects of the contract in relation to when it came to notice. And in fact, there were two clauses within the contract that were almost contradictory.

One of the contract clauses stated that if the employee had worked between one month and two years, they were entitled to notice of one week. And then there was a ladder provision in the contract that said that if you made it through your probationary period . . . so in other words, if in this contract the probationary period was three months, if you made it past the three-month period, that on termination of your contract, you would either get one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice.

Which is strange in itself because normally you'll see in contracts that the employer will give themselves an option to pay in lieu rather than saying to the employee that it will be one or the other, that you'll sort of retain that as an employer decision.

But the claimant argued that he'd been dismissed rather than had resigned from his employment, and therefore the second clause took effect and that he was entitled to one month's pay in relation to his notice.

But the tribunal ultimately held that he had been dismissed and that he hadn't resigned. There was an argument around resigning, and also then that the second requirement in the contract applied and that he was entitled to a month's notice.

Just reading through the judgement, I was going to take the very lazy route and just read Jason's excellent overview off the Hub, but I did go onto the tribunal's website and downloaded the decision to have a look.

Jason's overview is obviously very reflective of it, but what's interesting about the actual decision itself is that you had a judge sitting alone here, and you had a claimant that had attended the tribunal. You weren't talking about significant amounts of money. The claim for the month's notice pay was for £467.61, and the holiday pay claim was for £138.81.

They weren't significant amounts of money, but you're still looking at a 10-page judgement from the tribunal. And it goes to show when the contract isn't clear, the complexities that the tribunal have to go into in order to arrive at their decision.

One of the issues has been around the fact that the respondent said that the claimant had said that he wanted a worker's notice period, and then he didn't show up to work it, and therefore they didn't have to pay him for the notice period because it had been an employee failing to actually work the notice period itself.

Interestingly, as well, the tribunal do go through both contractual provisions set out within the contract itself, and then there's a number of pages where there are verbatim text messages, exchanges from text messages that are set out. And interestingly, I suppose it goes to show you where we're at in this day and age that the text messaging is the important evidence. It's the direct relationship and the direct line of communication between the employee and the employer.

Interestingly, in one of the text messages, there was one of the officers in the company, a Mr Munton, who wasn't the managing director, but it had been sort of passed over to him, and he had said, "You will be paid for your time in lieu". And I think that that was the interesting point from the tribunal's point of view, that this evidence was contained. Although the respondent hadn't attended the tribunal, the evidence was in place from the text message to say that he would get it.

And then there's a whole list of text messages. There's an interesting text message that ultimately comes from this employee of the company that the claimant is putting some pressure on around getting his payments. And he said, "Please do not message me", and he put a laughing emoji then on the text message as well.

You can kind of see, I suppose, the starting problems that you might have as the employer or the respondent in that case where a judge is reading that and is not going to be impressed with how that was conveyed.

But ultimately, the tribunal made a finding that he was entitled to his month's notice and that it was Part B, as it's called in the contract, after the probation period had been completed, where he was entitled to his notice pay.

I think the important takeaway points are that initially, as well, the employee wasn't sure who he should contact. There were two individuals that he was in contact with. He contacted the sort of owner/managing director of the company, and then had been passed over to somebody else. So I think you need to have a clear signpost of who the relevant figure is in the company for handling those sorts of matters.

And then I think it also reminds us of the importance of treating all correspondence-related determinations in a professional way and not to take that sort of informal approach. I think everybody should be clear, and ultimately the contract should be very clear, about what the position is when it comes to termination of the employment, what the notice periods are, and then in and around the holiday pay.

Ultimately, the judge said that he was satisfied that the claimant was dismissed from his employment by the respondent. The claimant hadn't been given proper notice, and ultimately, the employer had explicitly said that the claimant was going to be entitled to his pay in lieu and that that accorded with the terms of the contract.

Where you're unable to just simply read the contract and get the answer and you're having to put more effort in looking at evidence and deciphering through clauses in the contract, you can see the additionality that the tribunal judge is having to do.

But the judge said that he was ultimately satisfied that the claimant had proved his claim for notice pay on the balance of probabilities.

So I think it's back to that point of your contract does need to be clear. There shouldn't be two different provisions around the same clause within the contract where they are going to end up in conflict.

And ultimately, it's important that any employee can read a contract. You were saying there about Jason giving his overviews and his case overviews in a very simple, straightforward way. That's how the contract should be. It should be written in a way that is digestible and understandable by the employee.

I think then lastly is the perception around sort of being fair and amicable and treating your employee well when it comes to those disputes at the end of the case.

Christine: I think what came out quite strongly for me in this case, Seamus, is the balance of power is looked at by a tribunal, and rightly or wrongly, it is assumed that the employer has access to legal advice and is the more powerful in this situation.

So if there's a debate going on between an employer being right and a zero-hours employee losing out on some of their contractual, statutory rights, the tribunal is always going to come down on the side of the one with the least power and construe the contract to fit to get the best outcome really for the person with the less power. Isn't that right?

Seamus: Yeah, absolutely. I suppose in a case also like this where the respondent doesn't attend . . . I think that there had been an ET3 submitted in relation to the case, but they just didn't attend the actual hearing. And so you're going to be on the back foot automatically. You're going to have unchallenged evidence essentially that the tribunal are going to have to weigh up and it puts the tribunal in a tricky position. It's a harder job for the tribunal judge ultimately to reach a decision.

But you can see here that there are criticisms in the judgement about the poor recording of information around holidays and also the lack of record-keeping, and obviously then the issue of the conflicted contract itself.

Christine: Yeah, tribunals love you to be organised and have all your paperwork in order, don't they? I think that would be one of my takeaways from this case, is get your ducks in a row. Make sure you've got all your paperwork to back up what you're saying. Consistent, precise drafting is absolutely key.

And then the second takeaway really has to be that this was a small dispute, but it still came down in favour of the claimant. So don't think just because somebody has short service or whatever that you kind of abandon your normally tight procedures. Even if someone's only with you a couple of months, still make sure that you have all your paperwork lined up, your notice pay calculated, your holiday pay calculated even for relatively small sums, because it can land you in a tribunal, which is a headache and costs you dearly in other ways as well.

So thank you very much for that, Seamus. We are going to head back over to you, Jason. We've got the Sweeney case, if you could tell us about that.

Jason: I think just before getting into the Sweeney case, I'd say it's not just the tribunal that likes an employer to be organised in relation to documents, but it's also the lawyers. That would usually make our job a lot easier. So that's just one thing to add there.

But yes, getting on to the Sweeney case, what we have is Sweeney v Western Urgent Care. And again, this is a case from the tribunal from earlier this year. Mrs Sweeney was the claimant, and the respondent was Western Urgent Care, which provided sort of healthcare facilities.

Not all of the cases that I look at are based upon GPs, salaried and sessional GPs. It just happens to be the case that the two cases I'm looking at today do look at that.

This is actually a fairly peculiar matter in that the claimant here was actually bringing this case after she retired. Usually, we wouldn't have that, but this claimant had actually retired. She was an advanced nurse practitioner, and she'd been in that role from April 2017 until her retirement in November 2023.

The nature of the dispute was only in relation to the last few months of her employment, from July 2023 until November 2023. And what it related to was the rate of pay that she was due for the particular shifts that she took on.

She had been on a period of leave and then returned in July, and what she then found from July until her retirement was that her pay was lower than what she believed it to be. So that's sort of the issue.

But actually, we need to go before that and see why was this the case? The pay structure for the advanced nurse practitioner here was quite convoluted, and that's why we got into this situation of the tribunal having to make a decision.

There was a discussion that had been had, and there was a contract that the claimant was told by the medical director that she would receive 80% of a GP's hourly rate in terms of the shifts that she was taking on. And that had been fine. That was in 2020, and that had been fine up until July 2023.

What was then happening at this point? There was then a discussion as to why there was a lower rate of pay. And it was found that it seemed that the claimant here, the advanced nurse practitioner, was getting 80% of a sessional GP, which was higher than a salaried GP.

Part of the interesting aspect of looking at these cases is that you can be a bit nosy, let's be honest, and you get to see what some people get paid and what way their workplace works.

So what we're able to see from the judgement is that a sessional GP was receiving £90 per hour for weekend evenings and then weekends generally, but a salaried GP was getting £72 per hour.

The claimant said that she didn't know how much GPs were being paid. She was just under the basis that she would get 80% of a GP's pay. And the respondent then said, "Well, actually you were getting 80% of what the sessional GPs were getting, whereas actually you should have got 80% of what the salaried GP was getting". And so you could see where this differential was arising.

So she had been getting that higher rate of pay for some time, about three years it seems, and then when that was changed in July 2023, she then noticed that there was a reduction.

It should also be noted that when the claimant was selecting their shifts, there seemed to be a situation in which they could choose their shifts through a portal, and the rate of pay was actually shown for those shifts, and that didn't tally up with what was actually being given in the pay for this claimant.

I should also say that the contract was quite woolly on what the pay was to be. It said that based upon an hourly rate appropriate for shift work, and I had to quote from the contract, "as detailed on your pay statement". So it was actually sort of shifting it and saying, "Well, the contract wasn't saying what the pay was. It's actually what your pay statement says that your pay is".

So that seems quite a difficult way to actually consistently say, "This is right, this is wrong", because you're sort of doing it ex post facto. So that was somewhat problematic.

The claimant then brought a claim for an unlawful deduction from her wages from that period in July 2023 until she retired in November 2023. This must be the first case that I looked through that was really the tribunal having to pore over the details of the contract, as well as the discussions that had been had between the claimant and the respondent and the managers of the respondent in terms of what the rate of pay was to be and whether there was an unlawful deduction from wages.

And what the tribunal looked at . . . There was an argument, I guess. To start with this point, the respondent made an argument that there was a mistake. And when I say mistake, mistake in the sort of factual sense, but it's also the doctrine of mistake within general contract law. There's such a mistake, and that, therefore, should be able to be rectified without there being this claim.

They said that the mistake was based upon that distinction between the salaried and the sessional GPs as to the rate of pay. The tribunal did not accept that argument.

The tribunal looked at it and said that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the claimant had been overpaid her wages from July 2020 until July 2023. That was the contractual arrangement that was in place, and there was nothing to demonstrate that there was a change to the contract or that the contract had been varied to lower the rate of pay for that individual after July 2023.

So the hourly rates were set out by the booking system. The claimant continued to go on, and in July 2023, had booked the shifts up until her retirement. The rate of pay was set for those. So when she received a lower rate of pay in her pay statements, that was an unlawful deduction from her wages.

Therefore, for that period from July to November, and this is part of being a bit nosy, there was an unlawful deduction in the amount of £7,528.47. So quite a significant sum for what is a short period of time from July to November.

I'm sure, and I hope, that it helped that claimant on her retirement. Perhaps she was able to get a nice holiday. I don't know.

But that's essentially the sort of factual background and the thought process that the tribunal had to go through in terms of the contract didn't really help that much, the actual written nature of the contract, and saying that, "Actually, you should just look at what the pay statement says". But you had to unravel that in terms of the discussions.

There was that sort of blank statement that it was 80% of a GP's pay, but it didn't make that distinction between the sessional and the salaried. It was then the fact that it was based upon the sessional for those three years and that wasn't varied properly that then led to that decision that there was an unlawful deduction from wages.

And I think if we look at it in terms of what the key takeaways are, it goes back to the same point that we've had for the first couple of cases in that you have to have clear terms to your contract and you have to have clear pay terms. There wasn't a clear pay term here, and that's what led to the ambiguity.

The respondent felt that actually they were just rectifying something that had been incorrect, and actually sort of felt that they were doing a favour by saying, "Look, we don't require you to pay back the wages that we've given you".

So there is that aspect and making sure that the way in which an individual is paid is very clear in that contract and there is no ambiguity. Really, it's that confusion and ambiguity that lead to these tribunal cases in a lot of the situations.

And I guess the other aspect is about unilaterally reducing that pay. That was the decision that was made. The respondents sort of thought, "Actually, we haven't been doing this right. We're just going to change it", and there wasn't that discussion or a new agreement that was being set. It was just, "We're doing this because we think that this has always been the contractual position".

And actually, that wasn't the case when you looked at what discussions have been had, what actually was agreed, and what was being carried out between the respondent and this employee for that period from 2020 until 2023.

So there are those two key takeaways. If you want to change somebody's pay, you usually have to do it with agreement, especially when you're reducing it. The other aspect is that you should have, like we've discussed earlier, clear holiday contractual terms, clear notice contractual terms, but also clear pay contractual terms to avoid the situation where you're heading to the tribunal.

Christine: Yeah. I mean, obviously, this is a kind of GP/NHS case. So NHS is a big old beast, and there are documents stored here, there, and everywhere, and that was probably why they got into referring to other documents within documents that refer to documents. But it is a lesson for even smaller employers to just be precise, be consistent, and keep stuff in the same place.

I think that the employment contract is the place for all that information. It might seem like a bit of a pain to have to go in and amend it if someone gets a pay rise and stuff, but just do it to avoid this happening to you, essentially.

Brilliant. Thank you very much for that, Jason. Much appreciated. I'm mindful of the time, so we're going to move on to our fourth and final case. Seamus, what have you got for us on the McKay case?

Seamus:  Well, this is another local industrial tribunal case. This case was heard, I think, just in May 2025. Interestingly, and in true Mr Kelly fashion, it was dealt with expeditiously. The hearing was on 21 May, and he issued his judgement on 23 May. It is a relatively short, two-page judgement.

This is a case whereby the claimant was a head chef for the respondent for a very short period of service. He'd only been employed for two months, but the employment had come to an end after the period of two months, and the claimant was making a claim for arrears of notice pay, holiday pay, and then unpaid wages also.

There had been a case management preliminary hearing, and at that it had been clear that the claimant had no written terms of conditions of employment. So no contract in place in relation to it. I suppose this is just an interesting case of how the tribunal would go about dealing with the case.

So similarly to the other one, again, it's the judge sitting alone. Respondent didn't attend the hearing, and claimant did. I think there's some criticisms of the claimant whereby at the CMPH, the claimant was asked to produce documentation to the tribunal on a certain date that wasn't provided. But then the claimant did attend with two pages of WhatsApp messages by way of evidence between the claimant and the respondent.

And he was claiming £125.28 in relation to arrears of pay, holiday of pay of five days, and then four weeks in relation to his notice pay.

As I said, couldn't produce any contract of employment. And the judge was looking at the statutory minimum periods that are set out within the legislation and the 1996 Employment Rights Order.

So the position had been that he'd only worked for the two months, but the tribunal then went on to examine the information that it had. So it did have pay slips, and it concluded that the claimant hadn't been paid for an 11-hour shift and that also that he'd been not paid for 48 hours of holiday pay that had accrued. Typically, this was a chef that was working very long hours in a normal week.

And even though the employee had only been with the respondent for two months, there was a statutory minimum notice pay of one week that was not provided, and the claimant was awarded £1,030.94 by the tribunal in totality.

So I think it illustrates particularly around this case that, again, it's about employers not being clear about what the circumstances are, about what the terms and conditions of the employment are. And also, what you need is sort of clear and proper conclusions whenever you're coming about the end of a contract or when it's been terminated.

Again, it's back to that point to keep your records clear, particularly in relation to holiday requests, permissions, time off, holidays that are taken, and holidays that are granted.

Look, I do have a fair bit of advice around compromise agreements. It's always the contentious point in compromise agreements when you're going through the agreement and you say, "Well, your employer says that you've taken so many days holiday. This leaves you with a balance of . . . And this equates to . . ." And they say, "No, that's not right. That's not correct".

There's a good majority of the time, even with large employers with big HR departments, where they're just not on top of the holiday aspect. It is a real issue of contention.

And the important aspect with that, for me anyway, is HMRC. If they go back and look at agreements or settlement agreements that have been arrived at, they can do that up to seven years. They want their pound of flesh. They want their money that they're due and owing. So where there have been shortcomings or where there have been issues around that, there's also a failure then to pay appropriate tax and deductions in relation to that too.

I think notably in the case the focus came down to that the tribunal were looking at a careful examination of the claimant's pay slips, and that was the telling factor as to what the claimant was due and owing. But it's just one of those cases with no contract of employment in place, and what is it that the tribunal can do for a relatively short period of two-month employment?

Christine:  Yeah, I think that's what it sounds like for me. I think it's very tempting. You think, "Oh, this person's just been in and out of the company", and you kind of forget to dot the Is and cross the Ts. But you must do it for every single person.

Where this respondent fell down, unfortunately, is they didn't have the accurate pay slips, they didn't have the contract, they didn't work out the notice, they didn't work out the holidays. So just have your end-of-employment checklist, really, to make sure you are ticking all those boxes for absolutely everyone, regardless of how long they work for you. I think that's my takeaway there, Seamus.

Seamus: I agree.

Christine: Brilliant. Thank you very much to both of you for your insights on those cases. I had promised that we have a short video to play you all about the Employment Law Hub. So Gosia is just getting that lined up now. But thank you very much, Seamus and Jason, for your input.

Video:  Hello, and a very warm welcome. I'm delighted to introduce you to the new Legal-Island Employment Law Hub, redesigned and ready to support HR professionals across Northern Ireland like never before.

We've been working hard behind the scenes on a full digital transformation of the Hub. I'm excited to give you a short tour and show you just how powerful and practical this resource has become.

If you work in HR, you'll know how quickly employment law evolves. Staying on top of changes and understanding what they actually mean for your organisation can feel like a full-time job. That's exactly why the Employment Law Hub exists.

As a subscriber, you'll get instant access to trusted, up-to-date content written by leading legal and HR experts from across Northern Ireland. It's a streamlined, searchable, and supportive place designed to save you time and give you confidence in your day-to-day decision-making.

Let me show you around. We're now on the main page of the Hub. From here, you can easily explore the key sections using the drop-down menu. You'll find Employment Law Hub, Browse All, Topics A-Z, Articles, Webinars and Podcasts, and Case law.

Let's start with Browse All. This section shows the very latest articles and case law uploaded to the Hub. You'll see handy filters down the left-hand side so you can quickly sort content by content type, series, author, topic, or even legal body for the case reviews.

Next, we have the Topics A-Z section. We've identified 36 key employment law themes that come up again and again based on real-world questions HR professionals are asking. Say today's focus is absence. You can head straight to the Absence & Sickness topic. Here, you'll find over 250 results, everything from expert articles to case law, all in one place. Want to dig deeper? Filter by subtopic, such as sick leave, and you'll get more than 100 tailored results.

Moving on to our Articles section, this is where you'll find fresh, relevant guidance on the hottest topics in employment law right now, such as Good Jobs, the four-day week, mediation, and more. Each article is written to be concise, practical, and easy to understand. No legal jargon, just clear answers to the HR challenges you're dealing with today.

And don't miss our Friday Roundup, a weekly newsletter landing in your inbox every Friday morning with all the key developments in HR and employment law that week, just for subscribers.

We also feature exclusive expert-led series such as the "How Do I Handle It?" articles from Tughans, and the Q&A from Arthur Cox tackling real-life scenarios in a straightforward, supportive way.

In the Webinars and Podcasts section, you'll find recordings of all our previous sessions, including our popular Employment Law at 11 monthly webinar. Perfect if you couldn't attend live or just want to revisit something at your own pace.

And finally, let's talk about our most popular section, Case Law. Every week, we upload at least two key new case law reviews written by experienced employment law barristers. These summaries cut through the complexity. No legalese, just clear insight into what happened, why it matters, and practical guidance for employers.

So that's a quick tour of the Employment Law Hub, your one-stop trusted resource for everything employment law in Northern Ireland. We'd love you to try it for yourself. You can sign up for a free 14-day trial to see how it can support your work. Thanks for watching, and I hope to welcome you as a subscriber very soon.

Christine: There you have it. Thanks very much, everybody, for watching the video. I'm sure you'll agree that that voiceover artist needs a pay rise. How does she do it?

Anyway, thank you very much to Jason for joining us this morning. Thanks, as always, to Seamus for giving up a Friday morning to come and talk to me.

You can join me, Seamus, and Jason at Legal-Island's Annual Review of Employment Law on 13 November. We'll be there in person at the Crowne Plaza in Belfast, or you can join us online. We're really looking forward to it. It's the highlight of Legal-Island's year. So it'd be lovely if you could join us.

In the meantime, if you miss Seamus and I, you can catch up with us on the podcast wherever you get your podcasts, and you can also connect to us on LinkedIn. It's always nice to hear from you, so please do connect to us and send us a message if you can.

But all that remains to be said is have a lovely Friday, have a lovely weekend, and thank you very much for joining us.
 

Sponsored by: