Mr Ghaffar v Islamic Mosque-Brent First Respondent Zia Ul Uloom - Second Respondent — 2021

The tribunal held that Mr Ghaffar was an employee of the first respondent from 1985 until 15 February 2020, despite the religious nature of his work as Imam. In reaching that conclusion it relied on the parties' arrangements for pay, tax and national insurance, accommodation, the use of disciplinary procedures, and the respondents' own treatment of the post as one that could transfer under TUPE. Because the first respondent accepted that no written statement of terms had been provided if employment status were found, the tribunal awarded four weeks' pay, assessed at £600, for that failure.

On the dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the mosque's business transferred to the second respondent on 4 March 2020, but that the claimant had already been dismissed with pay in lieu of notice on 15 February 2020. It rejected the first respondent's case that dismissal was for some other substantial reason and found that the prompt for disciplinary action and dismissal was the prospect of sale and transfer to a buyer who did not wish to employ the claimant. The tribunal therefore held that the principal reason for dismissal was the transfer, contrary to reg 7(1) TUPE 2006, and that liability passed to the second respondent under reg 4(2)(b).

The tribunal awarded £4,500 as the basic award, £7,800 as compensatory loss, and £300 for loss of statutory rights, giving a total unfair dismissal award of £12,600. It also awarded £1,200 for notice pay, finding that eight weeks remained unpaid after taking account of payments already made to April 2020. The redundancy pay claim was dismissed because no redundancy situation was alleged.

On holiday pay, the tribunal found no evidence that holiday had been taken or properly recorded and applied the approach in King v Sash Window Workshop Ltd. It allowed recovery back to 1996 and stated a final holiday pay figure of £12,864.28. The overall award was £27,264.28, payable by the second respondent for the unfair dismissal element and by the first respondent for the other heads as recorded in the judgment.