Mr G Babikir v Designer Wedding Specialist Ltd T/a Saffron Events UK and Prestige Hospitality Ltd: 8002110/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)

Case No 8002110/2024

Venue Glasgow

Hearing 18 February 2026

Between

Mr G BabikirClaimant

Designer Wedding Specialist Ltd T/a Saffron Events UK and Prestige Hospitality LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge M Kearns

Mrs S Hayat for respondent

Director for respondent

Date 9 March 2026

JUDGMENT

[1]Of consent of the parties, the first respondent’s name is amended by adding the words: ‘Designer Wedding Specialist Ltd, trading as’ in front of the name: ‘Saffron Events UK’.

[2]The claimant was employed by the first respondent.

[3]The first respondent unlawfully deducted sums from the claimant’s wages contrary to Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The first respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £1,789 (ONE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE POUNDS) in respect thereof.

[4]The first respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £455 (FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY FIVE POUNDS) gross as compensation for accrued but untaken annual paid leave in terms of Regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.

[5]The first respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £471 (FOUR HUNDRED AND SEVENTY ONE POUNDS) being one week’s statutory notice pay under sections 86 to 89 Employment Rights Act 1996.

[6]The first respondent failed to provide the claimant with a statement of the main terms and conditions of employment as required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”). In consequence of the claimant succeeding in claims of a kind mentioned in Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002 and the respondent having failed to issue the claimant with a statement of main terms and conditions of employment the Tribunal awards the claimant four weeks’ pay, that is £1,885 (ONE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FIVE POUNDS).

REASONS

[1]The claimant was employed by the first respondent as a kitchen operative from 28 May 2024 until 30 September 2024, when his resignation took effect. Having complied with the early conciliation requirements, he presented an application to the Employment Tribunal on 12 December 2024 in which he claimed unauthorised deductions from his wages, holiday pay, notice pay, and compensation for the respondents’ failure to give him a statement of employment particulars.

[2]At the beginning of the hearing there was discussion about the correct designation of the first respondent. On behalf of the first respondent, Mr Anwar explained that ‘Saffron Events UK’ is the trading name of his company, Designer Wedding Specialist Ltd. It was agreed by all parties that the proper designation of the first respondent was: Designer Wedding Specialist Ltd, trading as Saffron Events UK’ and that the name of the first respondent should be amended accordingly.

Evidence

[3]The parties had agreed a joint bundle of documents (“J”). The claimant gave evidence on his own behalf. Mr Anwar gave evidence on behalf of the first respondent and Mrs Hayat for the second respondent. The claimant was an honest witness who made appropriate concessions. I accepted his evidence on most points. However, with regard to the rate of pay he said he had agreed with Mr Anwar on 28 May 2024, I concluded that the claimant was mistaken. Mr Anwar could not remember the conversation at all. The circumstances as the claimant described them were that when he spoke to Mr Anwar about his rate of pay on 28 or 29 May 2024, Mr Anwar was on a telephone call to someone else. The claimant told Mr Anwar that he required to be paid £18 per hour. His understanding was that Mr Anwar told him he did not have the experience to get £18 per hour and he was going to get £17. Mrs Hayat said the claimant’s rate of pay was £7 per hour. I concluded that there had not been the necessary ‘meeting of minds’ on this point. (There would not have been any misunderstanding about this or about the identity of the claimant’s employer if the first respondent had given the claimant the written statement of employment particulars he was legally obliged to give him.) Thereafter, the claimant was not paid at the rate he thought he had agreed and he did not appear to have queried this, though in fairness to the claimant it would have been difficult to work out the pay period in the absence of pay slips. In any event, the main reason for my concluding the claimant was mistaken that Mr Anwar had agreed a rate of £17 per hour with him was that I thought it unlikely that an employer would have agreed a rate of pay so far above the National Minimum Wage for a new start kitchen operative and also improbable that Mr Anwar would have negotiated a difference of £1.

[4]Where there was a conflict in the evidence between the claimant and Mrs Hayat, I preferred the claimant’s evidence to that of Mrs Hayat for the following reason. In the ET3 she put in on behalf of the second respondent, Mrs Hayat claimed that the claimant was paid below the NMW because he was an apprentice chef. She produced a letter which appeared to be dated 28 May 2024 which stated; “You start employment today as an Apprentice Chef….” The claimant was clear that no such letter had ever been given to him until it was produced for the bundle of documents in the context of his tribunal claim. Furthermore, the letter showed the address given in his ET1 (presented in December 2024) and not the address on his driving licence, which was the address he had given to the respondents at the start of his employment on 28 May 2024. Perhaps wisely, Mrs Hayat did not insist on this document in her evidence. Findings in fact

[5]The following material facts were admitted or found to be proved.

[6]The claimant worked for the first respondent as a kitchen operative at their premises at 77 Mauchline Street, Glasgow G5 8HQ. He started work with them on 28 May 2024. He came to be employed by them in the following way: He was looking for a job and one of his neighbours told him that ‘the Saffron Events company’ had vacancies. The neighbour took him to the first respondent’s office on 28 May 2024 and introduced him to Mr Al Rasheed, the Head Chef. Mr Al Rasheed recruited the claimant and put him to work the next day. The claimant asked to speak to someone about his terms and conditions of employment on 28 or 29 May 2024 and was directed to Mr Anwar. Mr Anwar is the sole director of the first respondent. The first respondent is a wedding planning company. The Companies House record of the company shows that its business activities include “event catering activities”.

[7]When the claimant spoke to Mr Anwar on 28 or 29 May 2024, Mr Anwar was in his office on the phone. The claimant had asked the other workers what their hourly rate of pay was and had understood them to say they were paid £18 per hour. The claimant told Mr Anwar that he required to be paid £18 per hour. His understanding was that Mr Anwar told him he did not have the experience to get £18 per hour and he was going to get £17. However, although the claimant sincerely thought Mr Anwar said £17, there was no ‘meeting of minds’ on the hourly rate. In these circumstances, the claimant is entitled to be paid the National Minimum Wage, which at the time was £11.44 per hour. Mr Anwar asked the claimant how he wanted to get paid and the claimant said he preferred to be paid weekly. Thereafter, the claimant worked for the second respondent for 6 shifts in a row from Wednesday 29 May 2024 until Monday 3 June 2024 inclusive. He was not given any shifts between Tuesday 4 June and Friday 14 June 2024. He worked again on Saturday 15th and Sunday 16 June 2024. Thereafter, he worked four shifts between Thursday 20 and Sunday 23 June. He worked from Thursday 27 to Sunday 30 June; from Wednesday 3 to Sunday 7 July; and from Wednesday 10 to Friday 12 July. He received no shifts at all between 13 and 23 July. He then worked again from Wednesday 24 to Saturday 27 July. In all, he worked 329.5 hours for the respondents between 29 May and 27 July 2024, when the second respondent stopped giving him shifts. He was paid a total of £1,980, which works out at just over £6 per hour and was well below the National Minimum Wage.

[8]Over the period of the contract, the practice of the parties was that the claimant was given shifts when the respondent had wedding work for him to do but there was no guarantee of work and the claimant was only paid for work he actually performed, rather than receiving a weekly salary. There were two periods between the claimant’s first shift on 29 May 2024 and his last shift on 27 July 2024 when the claimant received no shifts for around 10 days. Thus the agreement appeared to be that the claimant was not entitled to be paid for weeks when he did no work.

[9]The claimant never received any pay slips from the first respondent despite requesting them on numerous occasions. On the three occasions when they paid him, the first respondent paid him in cash. At the time of the claimant’s employment by the first respondent, the National Minimum Wage for adults was £11.44 per hour. The claimant worked 329.5 hours in total for the first respondent. He was paid £1,980. He should have been paid 329.5 x £11.44 = £3,769.48. £3,769.48 - £1,980 = £1,789.48. The first respondent therefore owes the claimant £1,789.48 or £1,789 rounded to the nearest whole pound in arrears of pay; that being the difference between the amount the claimant was paid by the first respondent and the amount properly payable under section 13 ERA.

[10]The registered office of the first respondent is at the address at 77 Mauchline Street where the claimant worked. The second respondent changed its registered office address in December 2024 from the address in the instance above to 76 Barrland Street Flat 43 Glasgow G41 1RE, though it still trades from the Mauchline Street address. Mrs Hayat is the sole director of the second respondent. Mrs Hayat is Mr Anwar’s sister. Both the first and the second respondent’s business activities are stated to include “event catering activities”. The claimant discussed the terms of his employment with the first respondent’s sole director Mr Anwar. Mr Anwar did not at any point tell the claimant that he was acting as an agent or representative for the second respondent. Mr Anwar corresponded by text message with the claimant about his pay (J33) without any indication he was doing so otherwise than for his own company. At no point did he tell the claimant he was acting on behalf of his sister’s company. It was Mr Anwar who gave the claimant his pay in cash.

[11]The first respondent did not give the claimant a written statement of employment particulars as required by section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996. The first respondent remained in breach of this duty when these proceedings were begun. The first respondent ignored the claimant’s requests for payslips and did not give him even basic information about his employment.

[12]The first respondent did not give the claimant any shifts for August or September 2024. However, there had been two periods during the contract up to 27 July 2024 when no work was given: (4 to 14 June and 13 to 23 July 2024). Indeed, looking at claimant’s record of the pattern of work over the first two months of the contract (J31) the custom and practice of the arrangement appeared to be that the claimant was given shifts when the respondent had wedding work for him to do but there was no guarantee of work and the claimant was only paid for work actually performed (effectively, a ‘zero hours contract’).

[13]The claimant wrote letters to Mr Anwar on 15 August 2024 (C13); 23 August (C14); and 30 August (C15). In his letter of 23 August 2024, he submitted his resignation, effective September 30th. The claimant was entitled to one week’s statutory notice pay of £471.

[14]The claimant was entitled to statutory holiday pay. His leave year began on the date he commenced employment, 28 May 2024. The claimant was an irregular hours worker. There was no regular pay period. The claimant worked a total of 329.5 hours for the respondent. His pay, corrected for the NMW for the total period of employment during which he was given work was 329.5 x £11.44 = £3,769.48. His holiday pay entitlement is 12.07% of this. £3,769.48 x 12.07% = £454.98. The claimant took no annual leave during the currency of his employment so his accrued but untaken holiday pay at termination should have been £454.98, or £455 rounded to the nearest whole pound. This was not paid. Discussion and decision Identity of the claimant’s employer

[15]It was difficult in this case to identify which of the respondents was the claimant’s employer owing to the casual nature of the arrangements and the cross-over of personnel from one respondent to the other. However, there is a very strong presumption that - as a matter of policy - in employment law (as opposed to delict), an employee cannot have more than one employer at the same time for the same work. This principle was confirmed in Patel v Specsavers Optical Group Ltd

UKEAT/0286/18

(13 September 2019, unreported). The claimant in that case was an optician working through the well-known high street optician. For procedural reasons, he was forced to argue that he had been employed by two companies contemporaneously. The EAT held that this is in general impossible in an employment law context.

[16]The claimant in the present case was adamant that he was employed by the first respondent. Mr Anwar and Mrs Hayat both argued that he was employed by the second respondent. The evidence of Mr Anwar and Mrs Hayat was that the first respondent is a wedding planning company and it does not do catering. They testified that when catering is required for its wedding clients, the first respondent uses the services of the second respondent. I concluded that on balance given the facts, the claimant in this case was employed by the first respondent for the following reasons. The claimant testified that he went to the address his neighbour gave him for the Saffron Events company. He asked for them at that address and was introduced to Mr Al Rasheed, whom he understood to be the first respondent’s head chef. In his ET1, the claimant described his role as “Kitchen Operative”. The Companies House records for the first and second respondents disclose the following information. The registered office of the first respondent is at the address at 77 Mauchline Street where the claimant worked. The registered office address of the second respondent is 76 Barrland Street Flat 43 Glasgow G41 1RE, though it still trades from the Mauchline Street address. Both the first and the second respondents’ business activities are stated to include “event catering activities”. The claimant discussed the terms of his employment with the first respondent’s sole director Mr Anwar. Mr Anwar did not at any point tell the claimant that he was acting as an agent or representative for the second respondent. Mr Anwar corresponded by text message with the claimant about his pay (J33) without any indication he was doing so otherwise than for his own company. At no point did he tell the claimant he was acting on behalf of his sister’s company. It was Mr Anwar who gave the claimant his pay in cash on the three occasions when he paid him. Claim for unauthorised deductions from wages

[17]Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 gives workers the right not to suffer unauthorised deductions from their wages. Under section 13(3) a deduction occurs where “the total amount of wages paid on any occasion by an employer to a worker employed by him is less than the total amount of the wages properly payable by him to the worker on that occasion.” The claimant had been paid by the respondent at a rate considerably lower than the National Minimum Wage. He is entitled to receive from the first respondent the amount by which he was underpaid. Mrs Hayat produced a letter with a date of 28 May 2024 purporting to show that the claimant had been taken on as an apprentice chef. The document (which was neither sent nor given to the claimant at the time) showed the claimant’s address as in his ET1, which was not presented to the Tribunal until 12 December 2024, whereas the address the claimant had given to the respondents at the beginning of his employment was the address shown on his driving licence. Although the document was in the bundle, Mrs Hayat wisely did not insist on it.

[18]At the time of the claimant’s employment by the respondent, the National Minimum Wage for adults was £11.44 per hour. The claimant worked a total of 329.5 hours for the respondent. He was paid £1,980. He should have been paid 329.5 x £11.44 = £3,769.48. £3,769.48 - £1,980 = £1,789.48. The respondent owes the claimant £1,789.48 in arrears of pay or £1,789, rounded to the nearest whole pound. Claim for holiday pay

[19]As set out in the findings in fact above, the claimant was entitled to statutory holiday pay. His leave year began on 28 May 2024. The claimant was an irregular hours worker. There was no regular pay period. The claimant worked a total of 329.5 hours for the respondent. His pay, corrected for the NMW for the total period of employment during which he was given work was 329.5 x £11.44 = £3,769.48. His holiday pay entitlement is 12.07% of this. £3,769.48 x 12.07% = £454.98. The claimant took no annual leave during the currency of his employment so his accrued but untaken holiday at termination should have been £454.98, or £455 rounded to the nearest whole pound. This was not paid. Claim for notice pay

[20]Under sections 86 to 89 ERA, the claimant is entitled to one week’s statutory notice pay. A week’s pay for employees with no normal working hours is calculated as set out in paragraphs 22 to 24 below. One week’s pay is £471.19 or £471 when rounded to the nearest whole pound. Claim under section 38 Employment Act 2002

[21]Finally, the claimant was not given a written statement of employment particulars as required by section 1 ERA. The respondent remained in breach of this duty when the tribunal proceedings were begun. Section 38 Employment Rights Act 2002 provides that where an employee succeeds in a tribunal claim under one of a number of jurisdictions set out in Schedule 5 of that Act (which include some of the claims above), and if, when the proceedings were begun the employer was still in breach of the duty, then the Tribunal must award two weeks’ pay and may increase this to four weeks’ pay if it considers it just and equitable to do so. The respondent ignored the claimant’s requests for payslips and did not give him even basic information about his employment. Their failures were egregious. In all the circumstances, it is just and equitable for the first respondent to pay the claimant four weeks’ pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002.

[22]Section 224 ERA indicates how to calculate a week’s pay for employees with no normal working hours. 224 Employments with no normal working hours.(1) This section applies where there are no normal working hours for the employee when employed under the contract of employment in force on the calculation date.

(2) The amount of a week’s pay is the amount of the employee’s average weekly remuneration in the period of twelve weeks ending— (a) where the calculation date is the last day of a week, with that week, and (b) otherwise, with the last complete week before the calculation date.

(3) In arriving at the average weekly remuneration no account shall be taken of a week in which no remuneration was payable by the employer to the employee and remuneration in earlier weeks shall be brought in so as to bring up to twelve the number of weeks of which account is taken.

(4) This section is subject to sections 227 and 228.”

[23]Section 228 states: 228 New employments and other special cases.(1) In any case in which the employee has not been employed for a sufficient period to enable a calculation to be made under the preceding provisions of this Chapter, the amount of a week’s pay is the amount which fairly represents a week’s pay.

(2) In determining that amount the employment tribunal — (a) shall apply as nearly as may be such of the preceding provisions of this Chapter as it considers appropriate, and (b) may have regard to such of the considerations specified in subsection as it thinks fit.

(3) The considerations referred to in subsection (2)(b) are— (a) any remuneration received by the employee in respect of the employment in question, (b) the amount offered to the employee as remuneration in respect of the employment in question, (c) the remuneration received by other persons engaged in relevant comparable employment with the same employer, and (d) the remuneration received by other persons engaged in relevant comparable employment with other employers…..”

[24]The claimant’s hours were 329.5 over the 8 weeks during which he was given work. There were also weeks when he was not given any work (J31). The weeks the claimant did not work do not count for the purposes of calculating a week’s pay under section 224. The claimant should have been paid at least the National Minimum Wage, which was £11.44 at the relevant time. Thus, the calculation of a week’s pay for the purposes of sections 224 and 228 of ERA is as follows: 329.5 hours x £11.44 = £3,769.48/ 8 = £471.19. A week’s pay is £471.19 for the purposes of calculating his entitlement under the Employment Act 2002. 4 x £471.19 = £1,884.76, rounded to £1,885.