Ms Aly (Counsel) For the First v Not present or represented For the Second Respondent: Not present or represented — 2018

The tribunal dealt with a preliminary TUPE issue concerning the claimant's work as a security guard at the cultural office. It found there was a relevant service provision change on 1 May 2013 within rule 3 of the TUPE Regulations 2006, and that the claimant was assigned to the organised grouping of employees affected by that transfer. The tribunal accepted that he had worked for the first respondent from 2008 under a 2009 contract, that his performance was satisfactory, and that he was told in March 2013 that his contract would terminate as of 1 May 2013; his last day at work was 30 April 2013 and contractors supplied by the second respondent started on 1 May 2013.

The tribunal rejected the second respondent's argument that there had been a change in activity so that TUPE did not apply. It found that the security operation was a professional service carried out by SIA-trained security professionals on a 24-hour basis both before and after 1 May 2013, so the TUPE regulations applied. It also held that the claimant's employment did not transfer to the second respondent because he was dismissed at the point of transfer, but that the second respondent acquired liability for the first respondent's infringements of TUPE under regulation 4.

On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant could proceed with his claim that he was automatically unfairly dismissed by reason of regulation 7. It also held that the claim for failure to inform and consult under regulations 13 and 15 could proceed to a hearing. The judgment noted the claimant's alternative arguments that the dismissal was ordinarily unfair or a redundancy for which he did not receive redundancy pay, but those matters were not determined in this preliminary judgment. The tribunal directed the claimant to serve a revised and updated schedule of loss by 8 February 2019.