In person For the v John Teahan — 2020

Ms K Reilly was employed at The Bell public house under a contract dated 1 January 2009. The tribunal accepted that she helped out in capacities beyond a simple barmaid, but found that she was employed pursuant to a contract of employment. After notice to quit was given to the freeholder on 1 August 2019, the claimant was told during August 2019 that the lease would be surrendered and the pub would change hands on 2 September 2019. The respondent said the TUPE clause in the lease assignment had been crossed out and that he did not think TUPE applied, but the tribunal held that it is not possible to contract out of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

The tribunal found that the respondent did not want to take on the claimant as an employee and ignored her letter of 3 September 2019 seeking clarification. It found that she was dismissed on 2 September 2019 and that the reason for dismissal was that her contract of employment had transferred to the respondent. On that basis, the dismissal was automatically unfair. The tribunal also found that the claimant was entitled to 10 weeks' notice and had been dismissed without notice, so the breach of contract claim for notice pay succeeded.

On consultation and information, the tribunal found that the pre-transfer consultation and information provided to the claimant was sufficient and that the statutory requirement to consult and inform had been discharged as regards both the transferor and the transferee. On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,140, calculated on 9.5 years at £120, and £200 for loss of statutory rights because the claimant worked 16 hours per week rather than five days. It found that she had secured comparable work by 11 November 2019, so it awarded no loss of earnings. It also awarded £1,200 for 10 weeks' notice pay and £240 for 8 days of accrued untaken holiday.