Case 1400839/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person and represented by her friend Mr Riberio (assisted by the Court appointed interpreter Mrs O Rouse) For the v Respondent — 2017
- Case reference
- 1400839/2019
- Decision date
- 11 November 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person and represented by her friend Mr Riberio (assisted by the Court appointed interpreter Mrs O Rouse) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment on preliminary issues, not a merits judgment on the claim form complaints. The claim form presented on 14 March 2019 included race discrimination and unlawful deductions from wages or other payments. At case management the claimant also said she wished to pursue unfair dismissal and to complain about March 2018 conduct as race discrimination, but the judgment recorded that the hearing was to determine continuity of employment, whether an unfair dismissal complaint could be added, and whether an amendment was needed for the March 2018 race point. The tribunal did not finally decide those substantive claims in this judgment.
On the evidence, the tribunal found that the claimant had started with TCFM on 27 November 2013, but by the time of the relevant 21 November 2017 transfer date her primary work had moved to the Morrisons store in Weymouth. Applying the TUPE provisions, including the requirement that the employee be assigned to the organised grouping immediately before the transfer, the tribunal held that her employment did not transfer to the respondent. It found instead that her employment relevant to this case began under a contract signed with the respondent on 10 November 2017 for work at Portland.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was expressly dismissed from that Portland employment on 21 March 2018. It relied on contemporaneous correspondence, including the claimant's own email saying she was fired, the respondent's 28 March 2018 letter confirming termination after probation, and the 23 May 2018 HR letter refusing reinstatement or compensation and stating there was no right of appeal. Later payslips, the May 2018 exchange in which the claimant says HR told her to wait, and indirect contact in February 2019 did not displace the finding of dismissal on 21 March 2018. The tribunal therefore held that there was no TUPE continuity from TCFM and that the employment relevant to the claim had ended on 21 March 2018.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Reserved preliminary judgment only; the tribunal determined that the claimant's employment did not transfer from TCFM under TUPE on 21 November 2017 and that her employment with the respondent relevant to this case started under a contract signed on 10 November 2017. It also found that she was dismissed on 21 March 2018, but it did not finally determine the substantive discrimination, unlawful deduction, or unfair dismissal claims in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- reg. 4(1) TUPE 2006
- reg. 4(3) TUPE 2006 ('immediately before the transfer')
- SoS for Employment v Spence [1986] ICR 651
- Sothern v Franks Charlesly and Co [1981] IRLR 278
- Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] ICR 1475
- Secretary of State for Employment v Globe Elastic Thread Co Ltd [1979] ICR 706
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.