Imagine you run a facilities management team. One morning, you learn that one of your cleaners works full-time for you during the day, and full-time for someone else all night.
You check the timesheets twice, then thrice, because no one can function effectively on so little rest, let alone while lugging Henry Hoover around at 3.00am.
Can you let this continue? And what do you do if they insist everything is fine?
A recent tribunal case answers the questions. It blends Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE), working-time rules, and a shift pattern that makes HR reach for the ibuprofen.
What happened?
The case, Ms M Ogumodede v Churchill Contract Services, involved a cleaner who ended up with two full-time contracts for the same employer after TUPE transfers brought both roles under one roof.
She worked:
- Day shift: Deutsche Bank, 8.00am to 5.00pm
- Night shift: Houses of Parliament, 10.00pm to 6.00am
For years, she kept the two jobs separate by keeping the second one secret. In fact, she had knowingly told previous employers she had no other job.
When both roles were transferred to Churchill, the truth became unavoidable: she was working 17 hours out of every 24, leaving barely any rest. The employer, now responsible for all of her hours, immediately faced a legal and health-and-safety problem.
The pattern was 17 hours a day with a five-hour break between the roles in the evening, and a two-hour break in the morning. This breached the Working Time Regulations, which limit night work to an average of 8 hours in each 24-hour period
Churchill suspended her without pay from the night-shift contract (the lower-paid one), explored lawful alternatives, and even offered a part-time evening role to make the hours compliant. She rejected every option, instead insisting she was entitled to redundancy.
Meanwhile, a separate redundancy process was underway with the Houses of Parliament contract. She scored well, was not at risk, and, despite receiving the e-mails, did not apply for voluntary redundancy.
Her explanation centred on her son being abroad with her phone, even though he somehow still managed to send and receive e-mails on her behalf during that period.
What did the tribunal decide, and why?
The tribunal dismissed all claims: unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unauthorised deductions, and redundancy pay.
Its main reasons were:
- The employer had a statutory duty to stop the working-time breaches.
- Suspension without pay was lawful because she could not legally perform the night-shift work.
- No redundancy situation applied to her. She was not selected, was not in the pool, and did not apply for voluntary redundancy.
- The dismissal was fair: the employer explored alternatives, and she refused all of them.
This was not a misconduct case, but rather a collision between legal obligations and an employee determined to keep an impossible working pattern going.
What can we learn?
- Ask about second jobs during onboarding and TUPE transfers. Record the answers.
- Do not assume employees know the working-time rules.
- When you inherit staff, check for combined hours immediately.
- Offer lawful alternatives first.
- You can justify suspending without pay where your employee cannot lawfully perform their duties.
- Redundancy is about the business situation, not the employee’s preference.
Source: Ms M Ogumodede v Churchill Contract Services: 2225883/2024 – GOV.UK
