In person For the First v Mr Chehaly, Consultant For the Second Respondent: Mr Henry, Consultant — 2022

Mrs Nicola Doyle brought these proceedings against Mr David Longman and Mr Adam Clay in relation to unpaid holiday pay and alleged unlawful deductions from wages, said to concern accommodation deductions and furlough-related payments. The tribunal noted that the claim may also have involved National Minimum Wage issues, but the claim as presented was directed to holiday pay and unlawful deductions before the transfer of the pub business.

The tribunal found that the pub business transferred from Mr Longman to Mr Clay on 6 April 2021 under the TUPE Regulations, with all rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with the claimant’s employment passing to the transferee under regulation 4(2). On that basis, Mr Longman was not the correct respondent and was dismissed from the proceedings.

The tribunal then considered whether the claimant’s claims had already been compromised by the ACAS COT3 agreement dated 21 September 2021, which settled the claimant’s separate proceedings against Mr Clay under case number 1402735/2021. It held that the COT3 was clear and effective, that the claimant had access to advice and explanation from an independent ACAS officer before it was concluded, and that it settled not only the specific sums of £1,170 for redundancy, £780 for notice pay and £2,811.54 for holiday pay, but also all other claims arising out of or in connection with the claimant’s employment or its termination.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that continuing without prejudice discussions or a lack of understanding meant the COT3 did not compromise her claims. It concluded that any and all employment claims the claimant might have had against Mr Clay were already compromised, and the claims in these proceedings were dismissed.