Case 2501527/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Kamanga & Others v OCS Group UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501527/2021
- Decision date
- 26 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge AE Pitt
- Venue
- via Cloud Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Kamanga & Others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants worked at Eldon Square Shopping Centre and transferred from INTU to OCS on 9 October 2020. They complained about the transfer process and about OCS changing the monthly pay date from the 28th to the 10th, which they said led to non-payment for the period between 28 October and 9 November 2020.
On the unlawful deduction from wages claim, the Tribunal found that time ran from the alleged deduction on 10 December 2020. Although Mr Kamanga said the claimants had understood that time ran from completion of the internal grievance process, the Tribunal found they were aware of potential claims and time limits by November 2020 and had other avenues for checking the position. It concluded that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim by 9 March 2021, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.
On the TUPE Regulation 15 claim, the Tribunal found that time ran from the transfer date of 9 October 2020 and expired on 8 January 2021. It found that the claimants knew by November 2020 that this was a potential claim and that each claimant could have brought a claim before the deadline, so the TUPE claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
For breach of contract, the Tribunal applied the Extension of Jurisdiction Order and found that a contract claim had to be outstanding when the employee ceased employment. The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction over the claims of Brian Watson, John Simpson, Kalala Kamanga and Christopher Twinn, whose employment had ended and whose claims were in time. It dismissed the remaining breach of contract claims for lack of jurisdiction, including Ms Ratcliffe's claim because it was premature when presented.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction because the alleged deduction was made on 10 December 2020, the primary time limit expired on 9 March 2021, and it was reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The Regulation 15 TUPE claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Time ran from the transfer on 9 October 2020 and expired on 8 January 2021; the Tribunal found it would have been open to each claimant to present a claim before then. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal decided jurisdiction only. It held that it had jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claims of Brian Watson, John Simpson, Kalala Kamanga and Christopher Twinn, including claim 2501527/2021, but dismissed the breach of contract claims of the remaining named claimants for lack of jurisdiction. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 15(12) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994 Article 3
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994 Article 7
- reasonably practicable
- Allen v Morrisons Facilities Services Ltd UKEAT/0298/13
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.