Case 2420062/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Second Claimant: Mr J Newton Mr M Hosford First v AIS Vanguard Limited Second Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2420062/2020
- Decision date
- 3 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Peck
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Second Claimant: Mr J Newton Mr M Hosford First
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Newton and Mr Hosford each brought breach of contract claims after being made redundant on 22 October 2020, saying they should have received enhanced redundancy payments under a collective agreement. The claims against the second respondent were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimants at the final hearing on 9 August 2021.
The only live issue was whether the Collective Agreement had been incorporated into the claimants' contracts of employment. The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that it was not. It accepted that the Collective Agreement had been entered into by Pickfords Removals Limited (incorporating Pickfords Industrial), but found the claimants had worked for Pickfords Engineering Services and later Vanguard Industrial Limited, and that their contracts made no reference to Pickfords Industrial or to any collective agreement.
The tribunal also found that the claimants and Mr Hemstock were not able to give clear evidence that Pickfords Engineering Services fell within the Pickfords Industrial "banner", and that the evidence was too vague and inconsistent to prove incorporation. By contrast, it found it more probable than not that the Vanguard terms and conditions applied, including because the December 2002 correspondence likely enclosed those terms and the holiday pay and sick pay arrangements were consistent with them.
The tribunal therefore held that the claimants had no contractual entitlement to enhanced redundancy payments and dismissed the breach of contract claims against the first respondent. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claims against the second respondent were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimants at the final hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Mr Newton's breach of contract claim sought an enhanced redundancy payment of £11,680.80. The tribunal held that the Collective Agreement was not incorporated into his contract of employment and rejected entitlement to the enhanced payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Mr Hosford's breach of contract claim sought an enhanced redundancy payment of £14,222.85. The tribunal held that the Collective Agreement was not incorporated into his contract of employment and rejected entitlement to the enhanced payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.178(1) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- apt for incorporation
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.