Zero-hours employee failed to prove dismissal: tribunal rejects holiday pay and unfair dismissal claims
A zero-hours employee who claimed unfair dismissal and unpaid holiday pay had her case dismissed after the tribunal found she had not been dismissed and remained employed. Two late reconsideration applications were also refused.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #zero-hours-contract
- #holiday-pay-calculation
- #employment-status
- #reconsideration-application
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent as a zero-hours employee.
- The tribunal found that the claimant had not been dismissed and remained employed.
- The claimant's holiday pay was calculated based on a 52-week average of worked weeks.
- The claimant made two out-of-time applications for reconsideration.
- The first reconsideration application was not copied to the respondent.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
Ms Shorter presented claims for unfair dismissal and holiday pay.
-
Full merits hearing
The tribunal heard the case and dismissed all claims, finding no dismissal had occurred.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The written judgment was sent to the parties.
-
Claimant's first email
Ms Shorter emailed the tribunal about holiday pay calculation, not copied to respondent.
-
First reconsideration application
Ms Shorter applied for reconsideration of the holiday pay decision, but it was out of time and not copied to respondent.
-
Second reconsideration application
Ms Shorter made a second application for reconsideration, which was also out of time.
-
Reconsideration refused
The judge refused both reconsideration applications as out of time.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had been dismissed and whether she was entitled to holiday pay upon termination. It also considered whether to reconsider its decision after the claimant made two out-of-time applications.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims for unfair dismissal and holiday pay, finding that the claimant had not been dismissed and remained employed by Kent Central Ambulance Service Ltd.
The key reason was that the claimant failed to prove a dismissal had occurred. The holiday pay claim also failed because the tribunal accepted the respondent's calculation based on a 52-week average of worked weeks.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed in their entirety.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you believe you have been dismissed, ensure you have clear evidence of the termination – a tribunal cannot award compensation if no dismissal is proven.
- Zero-hours employees are still entitled to holiday pay, but the calculation method (e.g., 52-week average) must be challenged at the hearing if disputed.
- Applications for reconsideration must be made within 14 days of the judgment being sent and must be copied to the other party – failing to do so will likely result in refusal.
- Representing yourself is possible, but you must follow tribunal rules strictly, including copying all correspondence to the respondent.
A case of no dismissal
This case highlights a fundamental hurdle in unfair dismissal claims: proving that a dismissal actually took place. The claimant, a zero-hours employee, argued she had been unfairly dismissed and that her holiday pay was miscalculated. However, the tribunal found that she remained employed by Kent Central Ambulance Service Ltd – a conclusion that left her claims without a foundation.
For anyone considering a similar claim, the first question to ask is whether your employment has genuinely ended. A tribunal cannot award compensation for unfair dismissal if the employment relationship is still ongoing, even if there are disputes about pay or working arrangements.
Holiday pay and zero-hours contracts
The claimant also challenged how her holiday pay was calculated. The respondent used a 52-week average of weeks actually worked, which is a common method for zero-hours workers. The tribunal accepted this approach, noting that the claimant had not raised the issue at the hearing. This serves as a reminder that any challenge to a calculation method should be presented clearly during proceedings, not after judgment.
Reconsideration applications refused
After the hearing, the claimant made two attempts to have the decision reconsidered. Both were out of time – the 14-day deadline had passed – and the first application was not copied to the respondent as required. The tribunal refused both, emphasising that procedural rules must be followed even by unrepresented claimants.
This case shows that while employment tribunals aim to be accessible, they will not bend the rules on deadlines or communication. If you need to ask for a reconsideration, act quickly and ensure the other side receives a copy of your application.
Similar cases
Taxi driver found to be employee and worker, awarded £5,181 for unlawful deductions
A private hire taxi driver was found to be an employee of the vehicle owner and a worker of the dispatch company. He was awarded £5,181.48 for unlawful deduction of wages, but his age discrimination claim was dismissed.
Agency worker's employment status claims dismissed: no contract with end-user
An agency worker who claimed unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and equal pay against the end-user and hirer lost all claims after the tribunal found he was not an employee of either respondent.
Short-service employee wins £3,423 for unpaid bonus and notice pay
A former employee with only four months' service successfully claimed unpaid notice pay and a quarterly bonus after a restructuring meeting led to his dismissal. The tribunal awarded £3,423 in total.
Self-employed surveyor's employment claim struck out: no reasonable prospect of success
A chartered surveyor who worked for Clements Agency Limited for nearly 30 years on a self-employed basis had his claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination struck out. The tribunal found he had no reasonable prospect of proving he was an employee.