Mr L Werenowski of Counsel For the First v Respondent — 2022

Employment Judge Truscott QC found that the claimant had worked for Menzies Aviation at Gatwick on easyJet aircraft, carrying out carpet fitting and related seat cover installation work. After Menzies gave notice of redundancy and later notified the claimant that his employment would transfer to Aeroco on 1 October 2020, Aeroco disputed that there had been a TUPE transfer and did not put any procedure in place for him.

Applying the TUPE provisions and the authorities cited in the judgment, the Tribunal held that there was a service provision change on 1 October 2020. The activities carried on by Aeroco were fundamentally the same as those previously carried on by Menzies, despite some fragmentation and the change from collecting carpet at Stansted to receiving carpet deliveries. The Tribunal found there was an organised grouping of employees at Gatwick whose principal purpose was carrying out the carpet fitting and seat cover installation work for easyJet, and that the claimant was assigned to that grouping. His contract therefore transferred by operation of law under reg. 4(1) of TUPE.

Because the claimant presented himself for work at Aeroco on 1 October 2020 and was not offered work, the Tribunal found that he was dismissed and that the sole or principal reason for the dismissal was his membership of the transferring organised grouping. The dismissal was therefore unfair under reg. 7(1) of TUPE. The claims against the first respondent were dismissed.

On remedy, the Tribunal used a £5,976 basic award, a £3,196.86 loss of earnings figure, £400 pension loss and £500 for loss of statutory rights, giving a £4,096.86 compensatory award. It also applied a 25% uplift for the second respondent's failure to undertake any procedure, amounting to £1,024.22. The order records compensation of £11,097.08, although the final line of the reasons appears truncated at £11,097.0; the arithmetic in the reasons supports £11,097.08.