Case 3201019/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Community Union & Others v Clarity- Employment for Blind People (In Administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201019/2020
- Decision date
- 5 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs J Land, Mr D Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Community Union & Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy as a respondent. It recorded that the respondent's administrators, FRP, consented to the continuation of the litigation by letter dated 8 April 2020.
The tribunal found that there was a relevant transfer under regulation 3 of the TUPE Regulations from the respondent to Clarity Products Limited on 31 January 2020. It also found that Community Union was the appropriate representative for the purposes of regulation 13(2) of the TUPE Regulations.
On liability, the tribunal held that the respondent failed to comply with its duty to inform and consult with Community Union under regulation 13. It therefore found the claim well founded and exercised its discretion to order compensation for all employees employed by the respondent on 31 January 2020, described as the affected employees.
In remedy, the tribunal said the failure to inform and consult was serious and that no reason had been advanced to mitigate the 13-week pay period under regulation 16(3) of the TUPE Regulations. It ordered the respondent to pay the affected employees 13 weeks' pay as appropriate compensation under regulation 13(7).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal held that the respondent failed to comply with its duty to inform and consult under regulation 13 of the TUPE Regulations. It ordered the respondent to pay appropriate compensation to affected employees measured as 13 weeks' pay, but no monetary sum was specified in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- regulation 3 TUPE Regulations
- regulation 13 TUPE Regulations
- regulation 13(2) TUPE Regulations
- regulation 13(7) TUPE Regulations
- regulation 16(3) TUPE Regulations
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.