Case 1400078/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Harris of Counsel For the First v Mr O’Sullivan, Solicitor For the Second Respondent: Mr Chaloner, Commercial Manager — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400078/2024
- Decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Harris of Counsel For the First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Irene Rockliffe was employed by South Gloucestershire Council as a cleaner at Brimsham Green Secondary School from 3 September 2001 until 31 July 2023. When the Council withdrew from providing cleaning services to the School, the cleaning contract was awarded to Direct Cleaning Services SW Ltd (DCS) with effect from 1 August 2023, and TUPE applied to the transfer. The claimant brought claims for unfair constructive dismissal (including automatically unfair dismissal under TUPE Regulation 7), breach of contract in respect of notice pay, unlawful deduction from wages, and holiday pay.
The tribunal, Employment Judge N J Roper sitting alone, found that the claimant resigned her employment with effect from 31 July 2023. While the Measures Letter from DCS and a client disclosure Check List indicating a potential £55 DRB fee linked to a three-month probationary period were potentially detrimental changes, the tribunal found that none of these changes were imposed. The Council had repeatedly reassured the claimant that her existing terms would be preserved on transfer, that the £55 fee and probationary period would not apply to existing employees, and that the Measures Letter was optional. The tribunal concluded there was no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and therefore no constructive dismissal. Applying TUPE Regulation 4(7) and 4(8), the claimant's objection to transfer terminated her contract without her being treated as dismissed; Regulation 4(9) did not apply as there was no substantial change in working conditions to her material detriment.
The claims for unfair dismissal (both under Regulation 7 and under sections 95(1)(c) and 98(4) ERA 1996) and for breach of contract in respect of notice pay were dismissed as not well-founded. The wages and holiday pay claims had been settled between the parties and were adjourned, to stand dismissed on withdrawal if not re-listed by 30 August 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claimant alleged unfair constructive dismissal in the course of a TUPE transfer from South Gloucestershire Council to Direct Cleaning Services SW Ltd, relying on the implied term of trust and confidence, and also automatically unfair dismissal under TUPE Regulation 7. The tribunal found that the claimant resigned with effect from 31 July 2023, that no detrimental changes to her terms and conditions were imposed, and that there was no fundamental breach. Both the automatically unfair dismissal claim under Regulation 7 and the general unfair constructive dismissal claim under sections 95(1)(c) and 98(4) ERA 1996 were dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was dismissed as not well-founded because the Council did not dismiss the claimant; she resigned without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Terms of settlement were agreed by the parties. The claim was adjourned to allow those terms to be implemented; if no application to re-list was made before 30 August 2024 it would stand dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment records this as a settled matter rather than an adjudicated outcome. | Settled | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay was settled on the same terms as the unlawful deduction from wages claim and adjourned pending implementation of those terms, failing which it would stand dismissed on withdrawal as at 30 August 2024. | Settled | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- TUPE Regulations 2006
- Regulation 3(1)(b) TUPE
- Regulation 4(7) TUPE
- Regulation 4(8) TUPE
- Regulation 4(9) TUPE
- Regulation 7 TUPE
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
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.