Case 3205811/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Communication Workers Union (“CWU”) v British Telecom Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3205811/2022
- Decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans Members
- Panel members
- Mrs A Berry, Ms J Houzer
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Communication Workers Union (“CWU”)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Communication Workers Union brought a complaint under Regulation 15 TUPE 2006 against British Telecom Limited (the transferor) and HMRC (the transferee) following the transfer on 1 July 2022 of part of BT's Telephony Services undertaking, which affected seven CWU members. The Tribunal unanimously found that both Respondents failed to comply with the Regulation 13 duty to inform the Claimant's representatives in relation to the Second Respondent's proposals concerning pay progression and the Salary Above Maximum (SAM) policy, which constituted measures envisaged in connection with the transfer.
The Tribunal found that the Second Respondent had envisaged the relevant measures by 20 June 2022 at the latest and that the mapping process had been completed by 25 May 2022. It held that the Second Respondent failed to provide the First Respondent with written information about the SAM policy and Ms Freer-Ash's entitlement to collectively agreed pay increases, amounting to a breach of Regulation 13(4) and being the primary reason the First Respondent failed to fulfil its TUPE obligations. The First Respondent's failure was characterised as a very minor breach, with substantial mitigating circumstances, because it should have put the information it did have in writing to the Claimant on or around 22 June 2022.
On remedy, the Tribunal noted the award is punitive rather than compensatory. Having regard to the seriousness of each Respondent's individual failure, and accepting that meaningful voluntary consultation could still have taken place in the time available, it ordered the First Respondent to pay 1 week's pay to each affected employee under Regulation 15(8) and the Second Respondent to pay 7 weeks' pay to each affected employee under Regulation 15(7).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Complaint under Regulation 15 TUPE found well founded against both Respondents for failure to comply with Regulation 13 duty to inform. First Respondent ordered to pay 1 week's pay per affected employee under Reg 15(8); Second Respondent ordered to pay 7 weeks' pay per affected employee under Reg 15(7). Specific monetary totals not stated in the judgment text provided. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Regulation 13 TUPE 2006
- Regulation 13(2)(b) TUPE 2006
- Regulation 13(2)(d) TUPE 2006
- Regulation 13(4) TUPE 2006
- Regulation 15 TUPE 2006
- Regulation 15(7) TUPE 2006
- Regulation 15(8) TUPE 2006
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.