Mr R Kissick Mr J Morgan Mr R Stables Mrs C Easun v Department for Education — 2024

The tribunal found that there was a relevant service provision change on 1 February 2022 when the Department for Education brought the Schools Buying Hubs contract in-house. It accepted that 2buy2 had deliberately organised a DfE platform for the contract, with named key personnel, a dedicated CRM, reporting, marketing, procurement and finance processes, and that the four claimants were part of that structure.

Applying the TUPE organised grouping and assignment principles, including the authorities it cited on organised groupings and assignment, the tribunal found each claimant's principal purpose was carrying out the activities for the DfE contract. It accepted evidence that each claimant worked hands-on on the contract, usually around 80% of their time, and rejected the respondent's case that their roles were only strategic or supervisory or that they remained employed by 2buy2 after transfer. The tribunal also noted that the respondent had previously accepted all four as in scope during consultation before changing position in January 2022 on the basis that they would retain roles at 2buy2.

Because the claimants transferred by operation of law on 1 February 2022 and the respondent refused to accept them, the tribunal held that the respondent dismissed them on that date and that the sole or principal reason was the transfer. The automatic unfair dismissal claims under Regulation 7 TUPE therefore succeeded. The tribunal rejected the respondent's alternative reliance on redundancy or some other substantial reason, and said that even if redundancy had been the reason, the dismissals would have been procedurally unfair because no redundancy consultation or fair process was followed.

The tribunal dismissed the Regulation 13 TUPE failure-to-consult complaints because the duty to inform and consult rested on the transferor, not the transferee, so the claimants could not pursue that complaint against the Department for Education. It held that the wrongful dismissal and holiday pay claims were well founded because the claimants were dismissed without notice pay or holiday pay, but the amounts were left to a separate remedy hearing.