It is not uncommon for an Employment Tribunal (ET) case to highlight an odd workplace situation. The case of Ogumodede v Churchill Contract Services definitely makes the cut. For over 15 years, the Claimant managed to work two full-time cleaning roles, working both day (8am – 5pm) and night shifts (10pm – 6am), Monday to Friday. A feat which the judge described as ‘remarkable’. This arrangement was eventually discovered and the Respondent correctly identified this as a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR).
The Facts of the case
The Claimant had been employed as a cleaner at the offices of Deutsche Bank since 2004, working 40 hours per week. Following a TUPE transfer in 2018, she became an employee of the Respondent. Alongside this, the Claimant was also employed to clean the Houses of Parliament (HoP) at night, for a total of 37.5 hours per week. The Respondent took over cleaning services from the HoP contractor in May 2024, meaning the Respondent also became the Claimant’s employer under TUPE in respect of their work here, as well as at Deutsche Bank.
The ET found that the Claimant deliberately concealed her Deutsche Bank job from her previous employer at the HoP, by declaring that her night shift role was her only source of employment. Similarly, when the Respondent took over the HoP contract and asked the Claimant to complete a TUPE form as part of the onboarding process, she did not disclose her Deutsche Bank role.
In July 2024, having identified that the Claimant was working two full time jobs which totalled 77.5 hours per week, the Respondent called the Claimant in to discuss their concerns. The Claimant was suspended from their HoP role with no pay. At the same time, the cleaners based at the HoP were undergoing a redundancy consultation. When the Respondent called for individuals to apply for voluntary redundancy, unlike 19 of her colleagues, the Claimant refrained from formally applying. The voluntary redundancy brought resourcing levels down to an acceptable level, however, the Claimant maintained that she should have benefitted from the voluntary redundancy package.
In late 2024, the Respondent dismissed the Claimant from her HoP role. The Claimant brought claims for unauthorised deduction from wages, wrongful dismissal, redundancy payment, and unfair dismissal. The ET dismissed all of the claims and held the Claimant could not rely on her contract for notice pay or wages during suspension because her working patterns clearly breached the WTR, making the arrangement unlawful. Further, it found that the Claimant had not applied for voluntary redundancy and accordingly was not eligible for a payment. The ET viewed the Respondent’s handling of the matter as fair and reasonable, citing that they acted in an accommodating manner and explained to the Claimant she could essentially work both roles, but under the provision she reduced her hours.
Takeaways for Employers
Employers who fail to ensure their workplaces comply with the WTR risk reputational damage, legal claims, criminal fines and – if convicted of failing to comply with an improvement notice issued by local authority inspectors – potentially up to two years’ imprisonment for directors. ‘Improvement’ or ‘prohibition’ notices are issued against employers to remedy breaches and ignoring them can escalate matters quickly.
Employers should ensure there is clear transparency between them and their staff: working arrangements, second jobs and hours should be openly discussed and properly recorded so as to protect both sides from the risks of breaching the law.