Mr. D Waugh v Mitie Limited — 2019

The claimant transferred to Mitie under TUPE and challenged the move from VSG's monthly payroll system to Mitie's rolling 28-day payroll cycle. The tribunal found that Mitie did not have continuing access to the previous Timegate payroll system, that it was not practicable or cost effective to operate two sets of pay periods, and that collective consultation had taken place. It also found that the claimant's contract contained a clause allowing reasonable changes to terms, including the payroll date and calculation period.

The unauthorised deduction from wages claim was dismissed because the claimant accepted that, by the hearing date, he had received the same pay for the same hours as he would have received under VSG and had suffered no financial loss. The tribunal considered that any shortfall at former monthly payroll dates had been made good under the new 28-day cycle and found no financial disadvantage in the relevant period.

The tribunal found that Mitie's 27 February 2019 letter provided the required written particulars of the variation to pay arrangements. It also found that the sole or principal reason for the payroll variation was not the TUPE transfer itself and that the variation was not void under Regulation 4(4) TUPE. The ACAS uplift claim was dismissed because no compensation was awarded and, in any event, the grievance timescales were not found to be unreasonable.