Mrs D Chesser v Randox Health London Ltd: 2404081/2018
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant's claim for damages for breach of contract fails and is dismissed.[2]The original application for unfair dismissal, if there was one, was dismissed byREASONS
[1]The two issues that I have to deal with are set out in Employment Judge Ryan’s minute of 26 July 2018. Firstly, whether the claimant was on a fixed term contract or a permanent contract and whether the respondent had the right to terminate her employment before her training was completed. Secondly, whether the claimant was contracted under her contract of employment for 40 hours per week or 32 hours per week. If for 40 hours a week then the claimant is owed money, if for 32 hours a week then she is not.[2]This claim comes down to an interpretation of a clause in the claimant's terms and conditions which is set out at page 135 of the bundle provided to me, which has been referred to me throughout the hearing by both representatives.[3]The clause is not particularly clear, nor is it well written, and could cause confusion for new employees of the respondent.[4]However, the letter that went to the claimant prior to her employment on 13 July 2017 (page 129) states in the first paragraph that the employment of the claimant is subject to a three-month training period (in effect a probationary period) and then a permanent contract “will” be issued.[5]It is clear that successful completion of the training element of her employment would be followed by a permanent contract for her.[6]The training period is finite. In this case from 4 September 2017 to 8 December 2017.[7]If there was no clause in the contract relating to notice, the respondent would be liable to pay for the time left to run, if the claimant was dismissed before the 8 December and if I interpret the training period clause as a term of the contract which fixes the term at three months. I do not read the training period clause as fixing a term of three months which both parties are committed to honouring. Even if I am wrong, there is, in any event, provision in the agreement between the parties for early termination by notice. The claimant lost her job with the respondent after only three weeks of employment before the end of September 2017.[8]Under the terms and conditions, it is clear the contract can be terminated by either party “at any time by giving the notice detailed in the notice section”.[9]The notice section follows the wording of the notice provisions in section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Where an employee has not been employed for one month, the respondent can ask the employee to leave without adverse repercussions and without giving any notice. There has been no breach of contract.[10]Turning to the issue of hours to be worked, the contract sets out for the claimant that her working week is 32 hours. She was not paid hourly.[11]When the claimant was training in Antrim for two weeks, she received pay for 40 hours at the behest of the respondent. They wanted to treated their employees, who were being trained on that course, fairly and those trainees worked longer hours whilst being trained. However, just because the respondent paid for 40 hours per week during the training in Antrim it does not follow that the claimant is entitled to be paid for 40 hours thereafter. When she returned to Liverpool for the third week of her employment, the claimant was paid for the 32 hours she worked. That was in line with her contractual terms and there has been no breach of contract.[12]Although I can understand how the claimant feels about the treatment she received, the fact is there has been no breach of her contract with regard to either issue and consequently her claims are dismissed.