A cleaner who covertly worked two full-time jobs for 16 years has lost her employment tribunal claim for unfair dismissal after she was sacked for breaching the Working Time Regulations. 

Mulikat Ogumodede worked 17 hours per day as a cleaner, split between day shifts at Deutsche Bank and night shifts at the Houses of Parliament between 2008 and 2024.

Despite having a good attendance and disciplinary record, Ogumodede was dismissed from her role after her employer, Churchill Contract Services, discovered she had secretly been working a second job. 

What can HR do about employees secretly working two jobs?

Organisations crack down on ‘polygamous’ workers – what steps should businesses take?

Moonlighting or misconduct? Navigating the rise of polygamous working

Ogumodede took the case to employment tribunal, arguing that she felt “very well” and rested on the weekends. 

However, the central London tribunal found Ogumodede “deliberately” concealed her second job from her employer as she knew it breached regulations, and ruled that there were “strong health, safety and public interest considerations” that supported the sacking. 

Background

Ogumodede was hired as a cleaner by Churchill Contract Services on 5 April 2004, which provided cleaning services for Deutsche Bank. 

She began a second role cleaning at the Houses of Parliament on 20 November 2008, which was managed through another external company, KGB Cleaning. 

Ogumodede hid the fact she had another job in her employee declaration, meaning she would work Monday to Friday from 8am to 5pm at Deutsche Bank and 10pm to 6am at the Houses of Parliament.

This arrangement continued for several years until Churchill Contract Services took over the Houses of Parliament contract in May 2023. This meant both Ogumodede roles now came under the same employer. 

A month later, Churchill Contract Services realised Ogumodede was working two full-time jobs, and a meeting was called to discuss concerns about her working hours. 

Because her roles breached the minimum requirement for 11 hours’ rest between shifts, she was suspended from the Houses of Parliament contract with no pay while the company investigated. 

During the meeting a company spokesperson said they were “concerned” about Ogumodede’s working hours, claiming she was not getting enough rest. They suggested this could negatively affect Ogumodede’s physical and mental health and create reputational risks for the business as it increased the likelihood of mistakes and accidents. The company said it was necessary to suspend her as a matter of legal compliance. 

Ogumodede claimed she felt “very well” and rested properly on the weekends, saying she was able to perform both roles to a high standard. 

On 19 August 2024 she submitted a grievance about her suspension, and there was another meeting on 12 September where she was offered a part-time role at the Houses of Parliament from 6pm to 9pm. However, she complained that her suspension without pay was unlawful. 

On 16 October Ogumodede was invited to another meeting to see if the company could accommodate her desired working pattern while observing legal compliance. She was asked again if she wanted to work part time at the Houses of Parliament, but she refused this offer, saying this was because she had been laid off for three months before it was offered. 

Her employment was terminated on 28 October. 

Judge’s ruling 

Employment judge Woodhead ruled that Ogumodede’s dismissal was “clearly fair” and said the company took a “reasonable approach” that was “favourable” to Ogumodede in offering her part-time work. 

He said Ogumodede failed to meaningfully engage with these discussions, stating that there were “clearly strong health, safety and public interest considerations behind the restrictions on working time”. 

“Tiredness, particularly associated with night work, creates an increased risk of an individual making mistakes, not just in the workplace but also in the wider world. The negative health implications of excessive hours on top of night work also have a potential cost to society,” Woodhead added. 

As a result, he found that the company’s decision to dismiss her from the second role was clearly in the band of reasonable responses. 

Expert comments 

Kate Kapp, employment partner at Doyle Clayton, said that the judge’s decision focused on Ogumodede deliberately hiding the fact she was working two roles, as she knew she was breaching Working Time Regulations. 

“There are special rules relating to night workers, and it is important to properly monitor your staff to ensure that they are taking minimum breaks and holidays,” she explained. “This is not an issue employers can afford to ignore.” 

Complying with these regulations is important to avoid reputational damage and employment tribunal claims and for the health and safety of all workers, Kapp added. 

However, if employers find an employee has a second job that may breach Working Time Regulations they should avoid knee-jerk reactions, she said: “Having a fair reason to dismiss is vital, but so too is following a fair process and investigating if and why someone is working in breach of the rules.” 

For more information, read the CIPD’s guidance on planning and managing flexible working