Case 3202071/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Murillo Gomez v Busy Bees Cleaning Services Limited and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 3202071/2019
Decision date: 4 May 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Elgot Members
Venue: East London Hearing Centre
Panel members: Ms A Berry, Ms G Forrest

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr A Murillo Gomez

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that the claimant's contract transferred from Busy Bees Cleaning Services Limited to Atlas Cleaning Limited under TUPE regulations 3 and 4 on 15 March 2019. It held that he was dismissed on 4 April 2019 for the principal reason of the transfer, so the unfair dismissal claim succeeded against the second respondent under regulation 7. The unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent did not succeed because there was no evidence that the claimant objected to the transfer from that respondent.

On remedy for unfair dismissal, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,841.73 using weekly gross pay of £512.23 and a multiplier of 7.5. It calculated the compensatory award for the period from 9 May 2019 to 4 April 2020, found that the claimant had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss, deducted earnings from temporary and part-time work with Estrada UK Cleaning Limited and Mitie Limited, and added £500 for loss of statutory employment rights. The compensatory award was £10,716.39, and the tribunal recorded recoupment directions under the 1996 Regulations for that award.

The claimant also succeeded against the second respondent on breach of contract for notice pay, on unpaid wages for the period between transfer and dismissal, and on holiday pay. The notice pay award was £2,612.35, unpaid wages were £1,459.60, and holiday pay was £549.19. The tribunal's grand total payable by the second respondent to the claimant was £19,179.26, excluding separate class-level payments ordered for TUPE consultation and protective award claims.

Separately, the tribunal declared that both respondents had failed to inform and consult affected employees under TUPE regulations 13-15. It made no compensation order against the first respondent because it did not consider it just and equitable to do so, but it found the second respondent's failure to be total and ordered compensation to the affected class, including the claimant, at 13 weeks' pay. The amendment adding a complaint under sections 188-188A TULR(C)A 1992 succeeded, the tribunal found a total failure to consult about proposed redundancies, extended time because it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the initial time limit, and fixed a protective period of 90 days.

Claims and outcomes

8 findings recorded

This 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
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found that the claimant's contract transferred under TUPE regulations 3 and 4 on 15 March 2019 and that his dismissal on 4 April 2019 was for the principal reason of the transfer, making the dismissal automatically unfair under regulation 7.	Upheld	—	£14,558
Unfair dismissal	The unfair dismissal claim did not succeed against Busy Bees Cleaning Services Limited; the tribunal found no evidence that the claimant objected to the transfer from that respondent to the second respondent.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The claimant was dismissed without notice or pay in lieu of notice. The award covered 5 weeks' notice pay plus the employer pension contribution.	Upheld	—	£2,612
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal awarded unpaid wages for the period from 16 March 2019 to 4 April 2019 at £72.98 per day gross, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance as appropriate.	Upheld	—	£1,460
Holiday pay	The tribunal held that accrued but unpaid holiday pay had transferred to the second respondent and was due on termination of employment on 4 April 2019.	Upheld

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £19,179; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £3,842; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £10,716; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.