Case 3313933/2019 · Employment Tribunal
R Mannathukaran, Counsel For the v D Charity, Consultant — 2018
- Case reference
- 3313933/2019
- Decision date
- 21 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Palmer Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
R Mannathukaran, Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that there was a TUPE service provision change from Optim Contract Services to Mark West Services Limited on or about 21 November 2018 in relation to vehicle washing and shunting at UPS Feltham. It found that the activities carried out after the change were fundamentally the same as before, that there was an organised grouping of employees whose principal purpose was those activities, and that UPS intended the work to continue with the transferee rather than for a single short-term event.
On that basis the claimant's contract transferred to the transferee and the respondent was not liable for the dismissal-related claims brought against it. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed. The tribunal said that, if there had been no transfer, the dismissal would have been for redundancy because the work was being done by another contractor and no suitable alternative work was available. The reasons also record the respondent's alternative case that any dismissal would have been fair if a fair procedure had been followed, with a possible Polkey reduction, and that there might have been contributory conduct arising from cannabis found in the claimant's car.
The remaining money claims were also dismissed. The judgment records that, if there had been no TUPE transfer, the respondent accepted it would have owed £900 notice pay and £2,160 unpaid wages for the suspension period, and the claimant sought £225 bonus and holiday pay, but the tribunal did not make any award. It found the holiday entitlement was not proved on the evidence as the claimant could not remember what holiday he had taken, and it found the bonus was unlikely to have been payable while he was not working during suspension.
The claimant withdrew his claim for failure to provide written reasons, and the tribunal dismissed it on that basis. No monetary award was made. The judgment refers in different places to Mark West Services Limited, Mark Reed Services Ltd and 'Mark West Limited'; the conclusion is expressed by reference to Mark West Services Limited, and the reasons appear to treat that as the transferee.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found a TUPE service provision change from Optim Contract Services to Mark West Services Limited on or about 21 November 2018, so the claimant's employment contract transferred and the unfair dismissal claim against this respondent failed. The order line refers to 21 November 2019 and 'Mark West Limited', but the reasons consistently refer to 21 November 2018 and Mark West Services Limited/Mark Reed Services Ltd. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The notice pay claim was only said to arise if there had been no TUPE transfer. The judgment records a conditional figure of £900, but no award was made because the claim failed after the TUPE finding. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant said he had 21 days' outstanding holiday, including carry-over, but could not remember what days he had taken. The judgment notes that the respondent said at most four days would have been owed if there had been no TUPE transfer, but no holiday award was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The parties agreed that £2,160 would have been payable for unpaid wages during suspension if there had been no TUPE transfer. The claim was dismissed after the tribunal found the transfer had taken place. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant sought a £225 bonus for 16 November 2018 to 23 January 2019. The tribunal found the bonus was unlikely to have been payable because the claimant was not working during suspension, and no award was made. |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Reg 3(1)(b) TUPE 2006
- Reg 3(2A) TUPE 2006
- Reg 3(3)(a)(i) TUPE 2006
- Reg 3(3)(b) TUPE 2006
- Reg 4(1) TUPE 2006
- Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd
- Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman and others
- s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- Polkey deduction
- band of reasonable responses
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.