Chef who asked to be relief worker loses unfair dismissal claim
A chef who asked to be treated as a relief chef and then claimed unfair dismissal when his employment ended has lost his case. The tribunal found the contract ended by mutual agreement.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #relief-chef
- #mutual-obligation
- #casual-worker
- #furlough
- #self-employment
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a chef from 14 December 2017, working 20 hours per week.
- During the third lockdown, the claimant undertook self-employed work.
- On 29 April 2021, the claimant asked to be treated as a relief chef.
- The claimant injured his Achilles tendon on 29 April 2021 and was signed off for 9 weeks.
- The respondent paid the claimant 3 weeks' pay in lieu of notice and holiday pay on 28 May 2021.
- The tribunal found the original contract ended on 29 April 2021 by mutual agreement.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a chef with a 20-hour weekly contract.
-
First lockdown
Claimant placed on furlough during the first national lockdown.
-
Claimant informs of Bulgaria trip
Claimant told line manager he accepted a job in Bulgaria from 11-18 April and would self-isolate until 28 April.
-
Respondent reopens
The Westerfield Railway Ltd reopened for business.
-
Claimant informs of Hungary trip
Claimant told line manager he would work in Hungary from 13 May for 7 days.
-
Shifts agreed
Claimant agreed to work shifts on 1, 4 and 7 May 2021.
-
Further Hungary trip
Claimant informed line manager of another Hungary trip from 11-16 May with 10-day quarantine.
-
Claimant requests relief chef status
Claimant texted line manager asking to be treated as a relief chef, saying he could not do three shifts a week.
-
Claimant injures Achilles
Claimant injured his Achilles tendon and was signed off work for 9 weeks.
-
Phone call about sick pay
Mr Stone told claimant he was not entitled to statutory sick pay as he was not a permanent employee.
-
Claimant submits grievance
Claimant wrote a letter stating he believed he was entitled to sick pay and had not breached his contract.
-
Respondent's letter
Respondent sent letter denying sick pay, stating employment ceased when claimant was unavailable for work from week commencing 10 April 2021.
-
Payment in lieu of notice
Mr Stone emailed claimant offering £549.78 as 3 weeks' pay in lieu of notice and holiday pay.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the chef was unfairly dismissed, specifically whether his employment ended by mutual agreement when he asked to become a relief chef, or whether the employer terminated it without notice.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal. It found that the chef's original contract ended on 29 April 2021 by mutual agreement when he asked to be treated as a relief chef. The employer's subsequent letter on 12 May 2021 did not constitute a dismissal because the contract had already ended. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you ask to change your working status (e.g., from permanent to relief), this may be seen as ending your original contract by mutual agreement.
- Employment tribunals will look at the overall conduct of both parties, not just formal letters, to decide when a contract ended.
- If you are unsure about your employment status after a change, seek legal advice before claiming unfair dismissal.
- Employers should clearly document any agreement to change an employee's status to avoid later disputes.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of how employment relationships can change informally. The chef had worked for The Westerfield Railway Ltd for three and a half years, but during the pandemic he began taking self-employed work abroad. When the restaurant reopened, he told his manager he wanted to be treated as a relief chef because he could not commit to three shifts a week. The tribunal found that this request, combined with his subsequent injury and the employer's actions, amounted to a mutual agreement to end the original contract.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer did not have a formal process for changing the chef's status. While the tribunal accepted that the chef initiated the change, a clearer written agreement would have avoided the dispute. The employer also sent a letter on 12 May 2021 stating that employment had ceased, which the chef interpreted as a dismissal. However, the tribunal found that the contract had already ended on 29 April when the chef asked to be a relief chef.
Why the result matters
This case shows that employees who request a change in their working arrangements may inadvertently end their employment. It also demonstrates that tribunals will look at the whole picture, including text messages and conversations, to determine when a contract ended. For anyone considering a similar claim, it is crucial to understand that a mutual agreement to change status can be a complete defence to an unfair dismissal claim.
Similar cases
Sales assistant with chronic kidney disease loses disability discrimination claim over furlough placement
A former nurse turned sales assistant who was placed on furlough during the pandemic due to shielding advice has lost her disability and age discrimination claims against Irvings Butchers Limited.
Constructive dismissal claim fails after employee stayed on for months
A solutions engineer who resigned after a performance improvement plan and grievance process lost his constructive dismissal claim because he stayed in the job too long after the alleged breaches.
Casual worker wins unpaid wages claim after 10 days' work via Facebook
A casual worker who responded to a Facebook post for help unloading a container has won a claim for unpaid wages, holiday pay, and failure to provide a written statement. The tribunal awarded £1,306.
Cleaner dismissed during Covid-19: employer's failure to respond leads to £2,719 payout
A part-time cleaner who was dismissed after asking to be furloughed has won her unfair dismissal claim after her employer failed to submit a response to the tribunal.