Case 3300231/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Stewart v Vertas Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300231/2022
- Decision date
- 8 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Walker Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Stewart, a coach driver who transferred from Norse to Vertas under TUPE on 1 September 2021, objected to Vertas's proposed change to the monthly pay date. The tribunal found that her contractual terms provided for payment at the end of each month, but not for payment of all earnings attributable to that month at that moment, and it accepted that the Respondent's proposal shifted the payment date by two weeks while future payments would then continue on a regular monthly cycle.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal held that the pay-date change did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract or a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found there had been extensive email correspondence, a group welcome meeting, and an interest-free loan offer to soften the first delayed payment. The tribunal also found that the Respondent's references to an ETO reason were legally wrong because there were no workforce changes, but it concluded that the claimant's real objection was to what she saw as an unlawful harmonisation exercise rather than to the delay itself.
The tribunal dismissed the separate automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because it had been withdrawn, and it dismissed the separate regulation 7 TUPE claim in the formal order. The reasons section later states that the regulation 4(9) dismissal is automatically unfair under regulation 7, so the judgment is internally inconsistent on that point; the structured outcomes here follow the formal dispositive paragraphs at the top of the judgment.
The claimant succeeded on regulation 4(9) of TUPE. The tribunal held that changing the pay cycle was a substantial change in working conditions and that Ms Stewart reasonably regarded it as detrimental, so she was entitled to resign and was treated as dismissed. It awarded a basic award of £2,919.51 and a compensatory award of £1,939.74, with the compensatory element limited to pre-sickness loss of earnings and a modest sum for loss of statutory rights because there was no medical evidence linking her later stress-related illness to the Respondent's conduct. The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed because no notice pay was due for days not worked.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis 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 | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; withdrawn in writing before the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the pay-date change was a delay in payment, not a permanent withholding of monthly earnings, and held that the consultation and correspondence did not amount to a repudiatory breach or a breach of trust and confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Separate automatic unfair dismissal claim under regulation 7 of TUPE. The formal order at the top records this claim as failing; the later reasons then describe the regulation 4(9) dismissal as automatically unfair under regulation 7, creating an internal inconsistency. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under regulation 4(9) of TUPE succeeded. The tribunal found a substantial change in working conditions and that the claimant reasonably regarded it as detrimental. Awarded subject to recoupment: basic award £2,919.51 and compensatory award £1,939.74. | Upheld | — | £4,859 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that, having been treated as dismissed under regulation 4(9) of TUPE, the claimant was not entitled to notice pay for the days not worked. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,859
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,920
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,940
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- regulation 4(9) TUPE 2006
- regulation 7 TUPE 2006
- Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust
- Lewis v Dow Silicones
- section 123(1) ERA 1996
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.