Zero-hours chef dismissed for not attending shifts wins notice pay
A commis chef on a zero-hours contract was fairly dismissed for failing to attend assigned shifts, but the tribunal awarded him £1,687.38 for unpaid notice pay because the employer did not follow the correct notice procedure.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #zero-hours-contract
- #conduct-dismissal
- #unpaid-notice-pay
- #failure-to-engage
- #incorrect-contact-details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a commis chef on a zero hours contract from 23 March 2015.
- The claimant was placed on furlough on 23 March 2020 and furlough ended on 24 August 2020.
- The claimant did not work after 24 August 2020 and was not paid after that date.
- The claimant was aware by 10 March 2021 that he was required to return to work on or after 25 March 2021.
- The claimant did not attend assigned shifts on 25 March and 2 April 2021 and did not contact the employer.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for conduct on 5 May 2021, but the claimant did not receive the dismissal letter.
- The tribunal found the dismissal for conduct was fair, but the claimant was entitled to 6 weeks' notice pay.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a commis chef at Holiday Inn Bristol on a zero hours contract.
-
Furlough started
Claimant was placed on furlough due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Furlough ended
Respondent wrote to claimant saying furlough ended and no work was available. Claimant did not receive this letter.
-
Meeting with respondent
Claimant met with Mr Walker to discuss return to work. Claimant was offered hours but insisted on redundancy.
-
Letter confirming return to work
Respondent wrote to claimant stating his average hours were 38 per week and he was required to return to work on 25 March 2021.
-
First missed shift
Claimant was assigned a shift via the app but did not attend.
-
Second missed shift
Claimant was assigned another shift but did not attend.
-
Dismissal
Respondent sent dismissal letter to claimant's old address and email, citing failure to attend work and disciplinary meetings. Claimant did not receive it.
-
P45 issued
Respondent sent P45 to claimant's old email address. Claimant did not receive it.
-
Claimant learned of dismissal
Claimant received his P45 from ACAS, learning he had been dismissed.
-
Tribunal hearing
The employment tribunal heard the case via CVP.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the chef was dismissed for conduct or redundancy, whether the dismissal was fair, and whether he was entitled to notice pay, holiday pay, and arrears of pay.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the chef was dismissed for conduct, not redundancy, and that the dismissal was fair. However, the employer did not pay the chef his contractual notice pay.
- The chef was awarded £1,687.38 for unpaid notice pay (6 weeks at £281.23 per week).
- No compensation was awarded for unfair dismissal, redundancy, holiday pay, or arrears of pay.
Lessons & takeaways
- Zero-hours employees still have a right to notice pay if they are not dismissed for gross misconduct.
- Employers must ensure dismissal letters are sent to the correct address; otherwise, the employee may not be bound by the dismissal date.
- Failing to attend shifts without contacting the employer can justify a conduct dismissal, even for zero-hours workers.
- If you believe you have been dismissed, check with ACAS early to avoid missing the time limit for bringing a claim.
A conduct dismissal that was fair – but notice pay was missed
This case shows that even when an employer has good reason to dismiss, they can still be liable for failing to follow proper procedures. The commis chef, who had worked for the hotel since 2015 on a zero-hours contract, was placed on furlough during the pandemic. When work resumed, he was offered shifts but did not attend them and did not contact his employer. The tribunal accepted that this was a conduct issue, not redundancy, and that the dismissal was fair.
However, the employer made a critical mistake. They sent the dismissal letter to an old address and an old email, which the chef never received. He only found out he had been dismissed months later when ACAS sent him his P45. Because the employer did not give proper notice, the tribunal awarded him six weeks' notice pay – a total of £1,687.38.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this claim by ensuring they had the chef's correct contact details and by following a proper disciplinary process. They also should have paid notice pay unless they could prove gross misconduct. The tribunal noted that the chef had insisted on redundancy, but that did not justify ignoring his contractual notice rights.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees on zero-hours contracts, this case is a reminder that you still have basic employment rights, including notice pay. For employers, it highlights the importance of keeping accurate records and communicating clearly. Even a fair dismissal can lead to a successful claim if the employer cuts corners on process.
Similar cases
Dismissed for failing to engage during sickness absence: a case of non-cooperation
A Business Support Coordinator with two years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to engage with his employer's sickness absence process. The tribunal also awarded £1,771 for unauthorised wage deductions.
Dismissed for refusing to attend meetings: conduct dismissal upheld
A clerical officer with five years' service was fairly dismissed after repeatedly refusing to attend investigation and disciplinary meetings. The tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim.
Dump truck driver removed from client site: resignation, not dismissal
A dump truck driver on a zero-hours contract claimed he was unfairly dismissed after being removed from a client site, but the tribunal found he resigned. His claim failed.
Constructive dismissal after suspension without pay and ignored grievance
A care worker on a zero-hours contract was constructively and unfairly dismissed after her employer suspended her without pay and failed to respond to her grievance. The tribunal found a fundamental breach of trust and confidence.