Mr I Ahmed, Counsel For the First v Respondent — 2019

Mr Jason Rumsey had worked as a multi-trade operative and had been transferred from Mitie to MPS Housing Ltd before R1 lost the housing repairs contract to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The claimant was due to transfer again, this time to R2's DLO, and at the individual meeting on 16 April 2019 he was told he would not have sole use of a van for commuting and would be doing mainly plumbing work, rather than the multi-trade work he had previously done. He ended the meeting after a dispute about the role, and the respondents treated that conduct as an objection to transfer and a resignation.

The tribunal upheld the TUPE dismissal claim under regulations 4(9) and 7(1). It found that, whether or not there had been contractual changes, the loss of sole use of the van and the move from multi-trade work to predominantly plumbing work were together substantial changes in working conditions and materially detrimental to the claimant. The respondents' reliance on regulation 7(2) failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant's old role had ceased to exist or that the evidence showed a relevant economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.

The alternative constructive dismissal claim was rejected. The tribunal also rejected the section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim. It found that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Act and that R1 had constructive knowledge of that disability, and it accepted that his sick leave in February and March 2019 arose from it, but it held that the alleged unfavourable treatment was not made out because of disability and that the respondent had made reasonable efforts to engage with him about the transfer process.

The tribunal reduced the basic award by 20% under section 122(2) ERA 1996 because it considered the claimant had acted unreasonably in not cooperating to achieve an earlier meeting and in rejecting the transferred role peremptorily. A separate reduction of any compensatory award was not made, because the tribunal did not find that the dismissal was caused or contributed to by the claimant's conduct within section 123(6) ERA 1996. The parties then agreed remedy by COT3, so no tribunal monetary award was recorded.