Mr N Benaichouba v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Ltd: 2305129/2023
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s breach of contract claim fails and is dismissed.REASONS
[1]I heard oral evidence from the Claimant.[2]The Respondent had prepared a Bundle amounting to 60 pages[3]Both parties gave oral submissions, and the Respondent had provided written submissions.Issues
[4]Did the Respondent breach the Claimant’s contract of employment by not providing him with 45 hours work per week?[5]The Claimant says this resulted in him being owed £732.Facts
[6]The Claimant engaged in ACAS Early Conciliation between 1 and 25 September 2023 and submitted the ET1 on 25 September 2023.[7]The Claimant started employment on 5 October 2015. He remained employed at the date of the hearing on 20 February 2024.[8]The Claimant’s contract of employment, issued around the time of his starting employment, states: “From week 2 and thereafter, your contracted hours will be an average of 42 hours taken over a period of several weeks which equates to 182 per calendar month”.[9]In a letter dated 8 September 2021 the Respondent confirmed a contract variation from 10 August 2021 that the Claimant would work 48 hours per week.[10]The Claimant attended a grievance meeting on 31 January 2024 but his pay claim was not discussed due to the fact it was being considered in the Employment Tribunal.[11]In a letter dated 1 February 2024 the Claimant stated that he was owed £754.17 for 69 hours work that was not given to him between May and September 2023.[12]The Respondent does not accept that he was not permitted to work 2 hours and therefore was £21.19 worse off in September 2023.[13]The amount the Claimant says he was seeking is not entirely clear. At the start of the hearing today he said the amount was £732.[14]Following receipt of the ET1, the Respondent made a payment of £491.10 to the Claimant on 13 February 2024. This equates to a gross sum of £732.98. This was classed as an outside of payroll payment.Law
[15]The Employment Tribunal has the power to deal with breach of contract claims by the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994.[16]The Order only applies to breaches of contract outstanding on the termination of employment. This means that persons still employed cannot bring a claim for breach of contract in the Employment Tribunal.Conclusions
[17]The Claimant submitted that he was entitled to be provided with 45 hours work per week. He says he was not provided with 45 hours work per week and this led to a loss of pay.[18]The Respondent accepts that the Claimant had a contractual entitlement to 45 hours work per week. It submitted that the claim was not one for a failure to pay for wages done, but for a failure to provide work for which wages would have been payable, and that such a claim is a breach of contract complaint. The Respondent cited the cases of Delaney v Staples [1992] 1 AC 687 and Besong v Connex Bus (UK) Ltd UKEAT/ 0436/04/RN.[19]As set out above, at the start of the hearing the Claimant, having considered the approach as set out by Mr. Clark, confirmed that it was breach of contract complaint that he wished to bring.[20]The Claimant remains in the employment of the Respondent and so cannot bring a claim for breach of contract.[21]The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide the claim as it is one which cannot properly be brought.[22]The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.