Mrs P Haynes Mrs E Woodford Miss L Smith Mrs S Goldenbaum Mrs N Virdee Ms D Elsworthy Mrs E Cooper (Timms) Mrs C Warren Mrs J Scarfe Mrs P Shaw Ms M Astill Ms D Jones v Leicestershire County Care Limited AT A FINAL HEARING Heard: At Leicester and partly by CVP — 2022

These joined claims concerned 12 care home workers whose contracts had transferred under TUPE in 2012 or 2015. In March to June 2020 the respondent proposed changes to the inherited terms, including removal of enhancements for nights, weekends and bank holidays, sickness pay above SSP, disturbance allowance, and some leave entitlements. The tribunal found the respondent was facing serious Covid-era financial pressure, including increased staffing, PPE and financing costs, reduced occupancy from 97.5% on 1 March 2020 to 70% by year end, and a business-wide need to reduce payroll costs. After consultation, 85 of the 97 affected staff accepted the new terms, 8 left for unrelated reasons, and 4 refused and were dismissed.

For the unlawful deduction claims, the tribunal held that the operative reason for the changes was the respondent's financial position in 2020 and Covid, not the 2012/2015 transfers or a reason connected with them. It rejected the argument that the changes were unlawful harmonisation, and found Dr Vive-Kananda's reference to "undue enhanced staffing costs" should not be read as showing an ulterior motive. Because the variations were agreed in fact and were not void under TUPE, the pay actually made on later pay dates was the amount properly due, so the unlawful deduction claims failed.

For the four dismissal claims, the tribunal held the respondent had a potentially fair reason within s.98(1) ERA 1996, namely the genuine financial pressures and need to change terms during Covid, and that dismissal was fair under s.98(4). It accepted the consultation and individual challenge process as a whole, including the absence of an appeal hearing, was within the range of reasonable responses in the circumstances. The tribunal also noted that even if the process had been unfair, a hearing would not have changed the outcome because the four claimants were refusing the new terms; Ms Woodford's evidence that she later accepted in time was rejected. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.