Case 3314468/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs O Carpenter v Fountain Montessori Pre-School Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314468/2020
- Decision date
- 6 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell
- Panel members
- Mr D Sagar, Ms S Johnstone
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs O Carpenter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Carpenter transferred to Fountain Montessori Pre-School Limited under TUPE after the business was acquired in November 2019. The tribunal found that from the outset Mrs Aiyetigbo intended to align the St Albans nursery with the respondent's standard terms, including extending hours and moving away from term-time-only working. Although the respondent did not implement the change immediately, it later sought to vary the claimant's contract, offered re-engagement on new terms, and gave notice of dismissal on 7 July 2020 when she would not agree to the proposed changes.
The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was the transfer, or a reason connected with the transfer, and that the respondent had not shown an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce. It found no change in the strength or functions of the workforce, and said the July 2020 dismissal was the implementation of a plan that had existed when the business was acquired. The claimant therefore succeeded in her automatic unfair dismissal claim under TUPE regulation 7. Her alternative redundancy argument failed because the tribunal did not find a redundancy dismissal within section 139 ERA 1996.
The indirect sex discrimination claim failed. The relevant PCP was the extension of working hours across the year, but the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had shown group disadvantage to women on the evidence before it. It noted the respondent's workforce was overwhelmingly female, that the claimant had produced no statistical or comparative evidence, and that the pool for comparison did not assist her case. The tribunal said that, had it been necessary to decide justification, the respondent's aim of aligning staffing with operating hours and business needs would have been legitimate and proportionate on the facts found.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under TUPE regulation 7. The tribunal found the dismissal was for a transfer-related reason and that no economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce was shown. Ordinary unfair dismissal was not separately determined after that finding. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant pursued redundancy in the alternative, but the tribunal held there had been no redundancy dismissal within section 139 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination claim based on the extension of working hours across the year. The tribunal found no group disadvantage was shown on the evidence; it said the PCP would also have been justified if that had been necessary. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- regulation 4 TUPE 2006
- regulation 7 TUPE 2006
- section 139 ERA 1996
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Abernethy v Mott
- P Bork International A/S v Foreningen af Arbejdsledere i Danmark
- Berriman v Delabole Slate Ltd
- Bilka-Kaufhaus proportionality
- Hampson v Department of Education and Science
- Hardys and Hansons plc v Lax
- Cross v British Airways plc
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
- Essop and Naeem
- Dziedziak v Future Electronics Ltd
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.