Mr Peter MacMurray v Aegon UK Corporate Services Ltd — 2025

Mr Peter MacMurray worked for Nationwide before the transfer to Aegon UK Corporate Services Ltd on 1 February 2024. He resigned on 30 January 2024 before the transfer took effect, after objecting to two matters: that his role would become full-time home working and that the healthcare benefit for his daughters would change from cover to age 25 to cover to age 21. The tribunal accepted there was a relevant transfer, and it considered the claim under regulation 4(9) TUPE 2006 by reference to the authorities it cited on substantial change in working conditions and material detriment, including Tapare, Abellio, and Cetinsoy.

The tribunal found that the claimant had a mobile role and that his contract had been varied over time so that working from home formed part of his working conditions. It accepted that moving from a hybrid pattern to full-time home working would be a substantial change in location, but held that the claimant had not shown the change amounted to material detriment in the sense required by regulation 4(9). On healthcare, the tribunal found the claimant had a contractual entitlement to family cover, but not to the underlying insurance policy itself, and found that the respondent would have honoured family cover for him and his dependants up to age 21. It therefore held that the change in the underlying policy did not amount to a change in working conditions.

The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found there was no breach of contract in either respect. It held that the mobility provision in the claimant's contract covered the change in working location and that the healthcare term was satisfied by the respondent offering family cover. Even if the home-working change had been a breach, the tribunal held it would not have been repudiatory. The tribunal therefore dismissed the TUPE and constructive dismissal claims, vacated the remedy hearing, and made no monetary award.

On redundancy, the tribunal found under section 139(1)(a)(ii) ERA 1996 that the claimant's dismissal was by reason of redundancy because the respondent had ceased to carry on the business in Nationwide's premises and had not acquired those premises. Applying High Table v Horst, it identified the claimant's principal premises as home and Nationwide offices. However, it held that the claimant unreasonably refused suitable alternative employment, including work from the Swindon hub or his previous role based from home, and so he was not entitled to a redundancy payment.