Case 1301441/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Tariq v Cordant Security Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1301441/2019
- Decision date
- 5 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr Bell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Tariq
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that, at the material time, there was not a service provision change within the meaning of regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) TUPE in relation to security services carried out by Cordant Security Limited at the Arrow XL site in Blackpole, Worcester. On that basis, the claimant's complaints of automatically unfair dismissal under regulation 7 TUPE and failure to inform and consult under regulations 13 and 15 TUPE were not well founded and were dismissed.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of unfair constructive dismissal under sections 94 and 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It dismissed the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages for the period from 3 January to 20 February 2018. The judgment does not set out any remedy or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found there was not a service provision change within regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) TUPE in relation to the security services at the Arrow XL site. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under regulation 7 TUPE was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The complaints of failure to inform and consult under regulations 13 and 15 TUPE were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint of unfair constructive dismissal under sections 94 and 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages for the period from 3 January to 20 February 2018 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) TUPE
- regulation 7 TUPE
- regulations 13 and 15 TUPE
- sections 94 and 95(1)(c) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.