Cook with 22 years' service fails in claim over reduced hours
A cook employed for 22 years claimed unauthorised deductions after his hours were cut from 30 to 6 per week. The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding no deduction occurred because he was paid for all hours worked.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #reduced-hours
- #contractual-hours
- #unfair-dismissal-withdrawn
- #breach-of-contract-no-jurisdiction
Key facts
- Mr Rajaravi has been employed as a Cook since 11 October 2001.
- His contract states a basic working week of 30 hours but allows the employer to vary hours.
- In early 2022 his hours were reduced from 30 to 17-19 hours per week.
- After illness in January 2023, he returned to work on 17 April 2023 but was only allocated 6 hours that week.
- He was paid for all hours worked.
- He remains employed by the respondent.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr Rajaravi began working as a Cook at KFC Croydon.
-
Hours reduced
His hours were reduced from 30 to 17-19 per week without a new contract.
-
Ill health period
Mr Rajaravi was unwell from January 2023.
-
Fit to return
He was fit to return to work but was only allocated 6 hours that week.
-
Claim presented
He presented an ET1 claim for unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions.
-
Hearing
The tribunal heard the case via CVP video conference.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim on withdrawal and the unauthorised deductions claim as not well-founded.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether reducing an employee's contractual hours (without changing the contract) amounts to an unauthorised deduction from wages, and whether it could hear a breach of contract claim while the employee still worked there.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unauthorised deductions claim as not well-founded. The cook had been paid for every hour he worked, even after his hours were cut. The tribunal also ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear a breach of contract claim because the cook remained employed.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Being paid for all hours worked means there is no unauthorised deduction, even if your hours are drastically cut.
- If you remain employed, an employment tribunal cannot hear a breach of contract claim – you must bring that in the civil courts.
- Long service does not automatically protect you from lawful changes to working hours if your contract allows variation.
- Withdrawing an unfair dismissal claim early can save time if you are still employed and cannot prove dismissal.
A long-serving cook's hours slashed
This case shows the limits of what counts as an 'unauthorised deduction from wages'. The cook, who had worked for KZ Catering Ltd for 22 years, saw his hours drop from 30 per week to around 17-19 in early 2022. After illness in early 2023, he returned to find he was only allocated 6 hours in his first week back.
He claimed the company had unlawfully deducted wages by not paying him for the hours he expected to work. But the tribunal pointed out a crucial distinction: he was paid for every hour he actually worked. A reduction in future hours is not a deduction from wages already earned.
What the employer did right
KZ Catering Ltd had a contract that allowed them to vary hours. The cook's contract stated a basic 30-hour week but gave the employer the right to change those hours. The tribunal did not need to decide whether that variation was fair – only whether the cook had been underpaid for work already done. He hadn't.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that employment law protects pay for work done, not the volume of work offered. Employees whose hours are cut may have other claims – for example, breach of contract or constructive dismissal – but those cannot be brought in the employment tribunal while they remain employed. The cook's unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn because he was still on the payroll.
For anyone in a similar position, the key takeaway is to check your contract carefully. If it allows your employer to vary hours, a reduction may be lawful even if it feels unfair. And if you stay in the job, your remedy for breach of contract lies in the civil courts, not the tribunal.
Similar cases
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Long-serving teacher unfairly dismissed after raising race discrimination grievance
A primary school teacher with 19 years' service was unfairly dismissed for 'irretrievable breakdown' after she raised a grievance alleging race discrimination. The tribunal also found she was victimised.
Machine Room Manager dismissed after blocking subordinate: conduct dismissal upheld
An Employment Tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a Machine Room Manager with 8 years' service who admitted physically blocking a subordinate during a workplace argument. No compensation was awarded.
22-year kitchen porter dismissed for sexual harassment: zero-tolerance policy upheld
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a kitchen porter with 22 years' service after he whispered 'I wish I could impregnate you' to a colleague, following a previous warning about inappropriate comments.