Mrs Helen Davis and Miss Charmaine Hanlon v Kare Plus National Limited and 1 other — 2020

Mrs Davis and Miss Hanlon worked in Southwest Healthcare Ltd's Bournemouth business, with Mrs Davis as Deputy Manager from 27 April 2018 and Miss Hanlon as Recruitment Consultant from 6 June 2018. By November 2018 they were the only employees supporting the administration of the business. The tribunal found that Kare Plus National Ltd took over the business on 12 November 2018 under a Deed of Release, and that Mr Stringer told the claimants their employment had transferred to Kare Plus and that it would be responsible for salary, benefits and expenses going forward.

The claimants continued working after the takeover. On 20 November Mr Stringer said Kare Plus would not continue domestic care services but would continue the recruitment business. On 27 November Kare Plus sent each claimant a new contract stating that TUPE did not apply and requiring a response by the following day. The tribunal found that Kare Plus had attempted to impose unilateral contractual changes without consultation and in breach of the notice provisions in the existing contracts.

The tribunal held that Southwest was an organised grouping of resources pursuing an economic activity, that the business retained its identity after the takeover, and that there had been a relevant transfer under regulation 3(1)(a) of TUPE 2006. The claimants' contracts transferred to Kare Plus on 12 November 2018. On that basis, the claims for unlawful deduction of wages, accrued holiday pay, wrongful dismissal damages, and Mrs Davis's expenses succeeded. The reasons state that awards were made in sums agreed by the parties, but the extracted reasons do not set out the figures.

The amended automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104 ERA 1996 was dismissed. The tribunal held that the claimants had not shown they were dismissed for asserting a statutory right; they resigned after non-payment of wages and related difficulties. The tribunal also noted that they would have had strong grounds for constructive dismissal if they had had sufficient continuous service, but they were not pursuing that claim.