Case 2302296/2019 · Employment Tribunal
(1) MR EDMOND BARROW (2) MR JOSEPH PERKINS (3) MR KEVIN CLUSKER (4) MR FITZLLOYD COOPER (5) MR MICHAEL BRESLIN v MEARS Ltd Heard by CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302296/2019
- Decision date
- 28 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) MR EDMOND BARROW (2) MR JOSEPH PERKINS (3) MR KEVIN CLUSKER (4) MR FITZLLOYD COOPER (5) MR MICHAEL BRESLIN
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThese joined claims concerned unpaid bonuses following successive transfers from London Borough of Lambeth through Team Lambeth, AWG/Morrison, Apollo/Keepmoat and then Mears. The tribunal held that the clause in the Lambeth particulars stating that weekly pay was supplemented by bonus payments was void for lack of certainty because there was no mechanism for calculating the bonus, no basis on which it was assessed, and no incorporated policy or scheme setting out how it worked. On that basis, the tribunal found there was no enforceable contractual entitlement to a bonus.
The tribunal then considered TUPE and the later changes to remuneration. It found that when Morrison had the whole Lambeth contract the claimants were not assigned to organised geographical groupings, so the April 2011 transfer to Apollo did not transfer any bonus entitlement under TUPE. It also found that the 2011 move to an NEC3 target-cost contract with bespoke schedule-of-rates arrangements materially changed the remuneration structure, and that the absence of bonus payments after 2011 was not because of the transfer itself. The tribunal further found that the claimants had not shown that they were regularly protesting about the missing bonus, and that they continued working and accepting wages, so any breach would in any event have been affirmed.
On time limits, Mr Perkins and Mr Breslin's unlawful deduction claims were out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present them earlier. Mr Breslin's breach of contract claim was also out of time. Mr Barrow, Mr Cooper and Mr Clusker were in time on the deductions claim, and Mr Perkins and Mr Clusker were in time on the breach claim, but all remaining claims were dismissed on the merits. No compensation was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim brought by Mr Barrow, Mr Cooper and Mr Clusker. The tribunal held the alleged bonus entitlement was not contractual because the written particulars were too uncertain to found an enforceable term. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim brought by Mr Perkins and Mr Breslin. The tribunal held these claims were out of time under s.23(2) ERA 1996 and declined to extend time because it found it was reasonably practicable to present them earlier. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim brought by Mr Perkins and Mr Clusker. The tribunal held there was no enforceable contractual bonus term, and in any event the bonus entitlement did not transfer under TUPE in April 2011. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim brought by Mr Breslin. The tribunal held this claim was presented outside the three-month time limit after termination and did not extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Deduction from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014
- TUPE Regulations 2006
- Regulation 4(4) TUPE 2006
- reasonable practicability test
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.