Case 2206027/2019 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr Thomas Isayas (2) Mr Biniam Gezahgne (3) Mr Engin Yaras (4) Mr Abdella Omar (5) Mr Francisco Pereira (6) Mr Musa Ramazini (7) Mr Daniel Alazar (8) Mr Samuel Abraham (9) Mr Fahd Aouina (10) Mr Rhodrean Allan v Metroline Travel Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2206027/2019
- Decision date
- 17 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Lewis Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr Thomas Isayas (2) Mr Biniam Gezahgne (3) Mr Engin Yaras (4) Mr Abdella Omar (5) Mr Francisco Pereira (6) Mr Musa Ramazini (7) Mr Daniel Alazar (8) Mr Samuel Abraham (9) Mr Fahd Aouina (10) Mr Rhodrean Allan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought claims against Metroline Travel Limited alleging failure to inform and consult under regulation 13 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal held that, pursuant to regulation 15(1) of TUPE, the claimants did not have standing to bring those claims. The claims were therefore dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment records only the resulting order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The judgment dismissed claims of failure to inform and consult under regulation 13 of TUPE because the claimants did not have standing under regulation 15(1) of TUPE. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 15(1) of TUPE
- regulation 13 of TUPE
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.