In person For the First v Respondent — 2020

Ms Tuitt worked for Broadland Guarding Services Ltd as a CCTV operator supplying the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. The tribunal found that, until 30 June 2018, Broadland provided CCTV operators to Richmond in the control room between 6pm and 6am, and that the claimant's role involved proactive monitoring of cameras, checking that they were functioning correctly, and responding to calls from the police and the public.

The tribunal found that Broadland ended the contract on 30 May 2018 and that, from 1 July 2018, Richmond chose not to employ full-time CCTV operatives to provide the same service. Instead, CCTV monitoring was left to Careline staff, whose principal work was described as a life-critical emergency response service. On the tribunal's findings, CCTV monitoring after that date was minimal and reactive, with the earlier proactive monitoring role having disappeared. The tribunal rejected any suggestion that Richmond had deliberately underfunded the service to avoid TUPE.

Applying regulation 3 of the TUPE Regulations 2006, the tribunal held that the activities after 1 July 2018 were fundamentally different and therefore there was no relevant transfer. It did not need to decide the alternative point about whether the work was intended to be carried out only for a short-term duration. Because there was no TUPE transfer, the claim that dismissal was automatically unfair because of the transfer failed and was dismissed. The tribunal did not make any substantive monetary award; at the end of the hearing it noted the first respondent's costs application and directed the claimant to respond in writing within 7 days.