The dismissal of a cleaner employed in two jobs working 17 hour days was fair

December 11, 2025

Share this article

The dismissal of a cleaner employed in two jobs working 17 hour days was fair

In the case of Ogumodede v Churchill Contract Services [2025] 9 WLUK 482, the Employment Tribunal found that an employee (Ms Ogumodele) had been fairly dismissed when her employer (Churchill Contract Services) learned that they employed her to in two jobs and the combined hours breached the Working Time Regulations.
Background
Ms Ogumodede was employed by Churchill Contract Services from 5 April 2004 as a cleaner at the Deutsche Bank and worked a day shift from 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday. On 20 November 2008 she commenced employment with KGB and undertook a night shift role cleaning at the Houses of Parliament from 10pm to 6am Monday to Friday. Collectively, she worked 77.5 hours per week. 
In May 2023 Churchill Contract Services took over the cleaning services for the Houses of Parliament from KGB and Ms Ogumodede’s employment transferred, under TUPE, to them. It was at this time that they became aware she was working two jobs. Concerned about the hours Ms Ogumodede was working, which were 17 hours in a 24-hour period with breaks between the two roles of only five hours in the evening and two hours in the morning, Churchill Contract Services discussed their concerns with her. They suggested reducing her hours for the Houses of Parliament work to 6pm to 9pm, which would have adhered to the working time rules, but she refused. Ms Ogumodede was dismissed with immediate effect from her contract in respect of the Houses of Parliament work.
Ms Ogumodede brought several claims including unfair dismissal.
Tribunal Decision
Ms Ogumodede accepted, during the course of the hearing, that she started working for KGB at the Houses of Parliament when she was already employed by Churchill Contract Services to work a day shift at Deutsche Bank, and she deliberately told KGB that her Houses of Parliament work was her only job as she knew she would be in breach of the law regarding working time.
The employment tribunal dismissed her claims. It concluded that Churchill Contract Services “took a reasonable approach” and the process “was clearly fair”. They had tried to discuss their concerns with her on several occasions and, to enable her to continue working at the Houses of Parliament, had offered to reduce those hours so the Working Time Regulations was not breached. However, Ms Ogumodede refused to engage in the process and refused the offer. The tribunal accepted that Churchill Contract Services could not continue to employ her in breach of the working time provisions and, when deciding which contract to suspend her from, Churchill Contract Services had chosen the Houses of Parliament as the hours and pay were not as good as for the Deutsche Bank.
The tribunal referenced the purpose of the Working Time Regulations to stop night workers risking their own and others’ health and safety by prohibiting excessive working time, which could have “a potential cost to society”. As such, they could not condone Ms Ogumodede’s conduct.
Take-away points
Whilst the dismissal in this case was held to be fair, this case serves as a reminder to employers that it is important to be aware of any additional work that employees are undertaking, to avoid being in breach of the Working Time Regulations. Breach of the regulations can give rise to penalties, including unlimited fines and imprisonment. There are a number of ways an employer can manage this, including:
  • Provisions within contracts of employment prohibiting and/or requiring written disclosure of secondary employment to the employer.
  • Clear policies on secondary employment which are communicated to employees.
  • Awareness by managers of secondary employment, through regular conversations, and confidence to enquire about it if there is any. 

If you’d like advice tailored to your situation, contact Nicola Cockerill on 0800 915 7777 or email nc@kilgannonlaw.co.uk .

< Older Post Newer Post >

Recent Posts

Three coworkers reviewing documents at a table in a bright office

Fire and rehire restrictions: what employers need to know ahead of January 2027

By Anthony Thompson • October 22, 2026
New fire and rehire restrictions are expected in January 2027. Discover which contractual changes are affected and how employers can prepare.
Two coworkers reviewing documents at a table with a laptop in a bright office, one pointing thoughtfully

What are the Key Areas Likely to be Impacted by these changes and What Steps Can Employers Take to Prepare for them?

By Nicola Cockerill • October 20, 2026
Explore key employment law changes, the areas they may affect and practical steps employers can take to prepare their business and HR policies.
Three coworkers in a meeting, discussing ideas around a laptop at a conference table.

Unfair Dismissal changes from 1 January 2027: What employers need to do now

September 25, 2026
From 1 January 2027 unfair dismissal protection moves to six months and the compensation cap is removed. See what employers should change now.
Two people talking in a modern office lounge, seated across from each other and holding papers.

The (re)introduction of third-party harassment from 30 October 2026. What the duty means for employers.

September 25, 2026
From 30 October 2026, employers face liability for third-party harassment. Find out what changes and the practical steps businesses should take now.
Three coworkers in discussion at a conference table with a laptop and mugs in a modern office

Employment Rights Act 2025: What the new Sexual Harassment duty means for employers from 30 October 2026

September 25, 2026
From 30 October 2026 employers must take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment and address third-party harassment. See what to do now.
A person in a white lab coat and pink gloves holds a small rainbow heart pin, with a stethoscope draped around their neck.

Did the use of NHS changing room by transgender woman give rise to claims for harassment and/or indirect discrimination?

February 3, 2026
Did the use of NHS changing room by transgender woman give rise to claims for harassment and/or indirect discrimination?
A person with long dark hair, wearing a green and orange patterned top, looks toward the camera against a black background.

Tribunal ruling puts ‘up or out’ employment policies under scrutiny

February 3, 2026
The appeal judgment criticised the original tribunal’s handling of both disability and justification issues. The judgment indicates that employers making dismissals based on assessment of readiness for promotion, without the employee having carried out the work for the role above, will struggle to show that decision is
A person smiling at the camera, wearing a green and orange patterned top against a dark, plain background.

Ms Sanju Pal succeeds in appeal against Accenture at the Employment Appeal Tribunal

January 19, 2026
Ms Sanju Pal succeeds in appeal against Accenture at the Employment Appeal Tribunal – Tribunal’s reasoning on disability discrimination due to endometriosis was “wholly inadequate” and the decision could not stand
Two hands wearing rainbow-colored bracelets come together to form a heart shape.

Non-binary identity does not give rise to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

December 18, 2025
A tribunal ruled non-binary identity does not amount to gender reassignment. Learn the legal reasoning and workplace implications with Kilgannon Law.
Two people exchange documents across a desk in a bright office; one person smiles while receiving a paper.

Assurances by CEO bind Company to extend share options post-employment

December 10, 2025
Understand how employee share options work, the different types available, and their tax implications. Learn how share schemes can reward staff, attract talent, and support business growth.
Show More