Zero-hours driver unfairly dismissed after being told 'no further work'
A delivery driver on a zero-hours contract was unfairly dismissed when his employer summarily ended his work without following any disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £6,675.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a delivery driver on a zero-hours contract from 1 April 2014 to 30 April 2021.
- On 30 April 2021, the respondent summarily terminated the claimant's employment by telling him no further work would be offered.
- The respondent alleged gross misconduct but did not follow a disciplinary process.
- The claimant earned a basic rate of £350 per week and average take-home pay of £375 per week.
- The claimant was out of work for eight weeks until 28 June 2021.
- The tribunal found the claim was brought in time after accounting for statutory notice period.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as a delivery driver on a zero-hours contract.
-
Summary dismissal
The respondent told the claimant no further work would be offered, effectively dismissing him without notice.
-
Early conciliation started
Claimant began early conciliation with ACAS.
-
Early conciliation certificate issued
ACAS issued the early conciliation certificate.
-
Claim form presented
Claimant's claim form was received by the tribunal.
-
Final hearing
The tribunal heard the case at Cambridge Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Ord issued the judgment finding unfair dismissal and awarding £6,675.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether his claim was presented within the time limit, considering the effective date of termination after statutory notice.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The employer had alleged gross misconduct but did not follow any disciplinary process, instead simply telling the claimant no further work would be offered under his zero-hours contract. The claim was brought in time because the effective date of termination was extended by the statutory notice period the claimant was entitled to.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £3,675
- Compensatory award: £3,000
- Total: £6,675
Lessons & takeaways
- Even on a zero-hours contract, you have employment rights after two years' service, including protection from unfair dismissal.
- If an employer alleges gross misconduct, they must still follow a fair disciplinary process, including investigation and a hearing.
- The effective date of termination can be extended by the statutory notice period you are entitled to, which may help you bring a claim in time.
- Keep payslips and contracts to prove who your employer is, especially if companies are related.
A summary dismissal without process
This case shows that even workers on zero-hours contracts are entitled to a fair dismissal process once they have two years' service. The claimant, a delivery driver for seven years, was told on 30 April 2021 that no further work would be offered. The employer's HR consultant mentioned gross misconduct but did not carry out any investigation or disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found that simply stopping work under a zero-hours contract was a dismissal, and that it was unfair because no procedure was followed.
The employer did not attend the hearing and had argued the claim was out of time. However, the tribunal noted that the claimant was entitled to seven weeks' statutory notice, which pushed the effective date of termination to 18 June 2021. The claim, presented on 5 August 2021 after early conciliation, was therefore within the three-month time limit.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by following a basic disciplinary process. Even if they believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct, they should have investigated the allegations, invited the claimant to a meeting, and allowed him to respond. Instead, they made a unilateral decision that left the claimant without work or notice.
Why this matters
This decision reinforces that zero-hours workers are not second-class employees when it comes to unfair dismissal rights. It also highlights the importance of the statutory notice period in calculating time limits for tribunal claims. For workers who are dismissed without notice, the effective date of termination may be later than the date they stop working, giving them more time to bring a claim.
Similar cases
Dismissed by email: a day's delay that cost the claim
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was thrown out because he contacted ACAS two days after the three-month deadline, even though he read his dismissal email the day after it was sent.
Social worker's unfair dismissal claim thrown out for being over a year late
A social worker who waited over a year to bring an unfair dismissal claim after being summarily dismissed for gross misconduct had her case struck out as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for her to have claimed within the three-month limit.
Self-employed sales director's unfair dismissal claim dismissed as out of time
A sales director who provided services as a self-employed worker was dismissed by telephone in July 2020. The tribunal ruled his unfair dismissal claim was presented too late and he was not an employee.
Race discrimination claim dismissed after social worker missed time limit
An experienced social worker's race discrimination and constructive dismissal claims against Devon County Council were dismissed because she presented her claim too late, and the tribunal refused to extend time.