Mrs C Scott First v Marlow Chiropractic Ltd Second Respondent: JONROG Ltd — 2024

Mrs Scott had worked for Marlow Chiropractic Ltd from 6 October 2010 and was a Practice Manager by the time the business transferred to Jonrog Ltd on 1 February 2022. The tribunal found that the transfer took place under TUPE, that she began work at the transferee's premises on 1 February 2022, and that she resigned on 11 March 2022. The unfair dismissal case was analysed as a constructive dismissal claim under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996, with the implied term of trust and confidence drawn from Malik and Mahmud v BCCI.

On the facts, the tribunal found that the First Respondent failed to consult Mrs Scott properly before the transfer, but that this omission did not amount to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence. It accepted that Dr Brooks tried to keep her informed and reassure her, and that the background included discussion of possible redundancy and a late-stage transfer process. The tribunal did not accept that the job change from Practice Manager to receptionist was a substantive change in duties, found that the revised hours and pay arrangements were intended to preserve her overall pay, and rejected the allegation that Mr Partridge said she would have to leave if she did not agree to the changes.

The tribunal also rejected the alternative Regulation 4(9) TUPE route. It found that the change in role title, hours and workplace did not amount to a substantial change in working conditions to the claimant's material detriment, and that her resignation was more likely caused by dissatisfaction with her working conditions at Marlow Beauty, including the workstation issues and her back and neck pain, rather than by the First Respondent's failure to consult. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.

The TUPE information and consultation claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the First Respondent failed to inform and consult the claimant in the manner required by Regulation 13 and Regulation 13A, because she was given insufficient detail and only told very late that the transfer would definitely happen. It accepted that the Second Respondent only appreciated the position late and took steps to consult her, so there was no separate failure found against it, but compensation was ordered jointly and severally under Regulation 15(9). The tribunal assessed a just and equitable award at nine weeks' gross pay of £636 per week, producing £5,088, and made no award for a written statement of particulars.