Case 4100017/2018 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr B Bennett v Represented by 4100017/2018 & others Page Mr Lawson Solicitor Amey Service Limited and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 4100017/2018
- Decision date
- 18 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Muriel Robison
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
4 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether the end of North Lanarkshire Council's kitchen replacement work triggered a TUPE service provision change, and if so which respondent took over each claimant. The claimants had brought claims including unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay. The tribunal recorded that the claims against North Lanarkshire Council had already been dismissed after withdrawal. This judgment resolved respondent liability only and did not decide the underlying merits of the pay and dismissal claims.
The tribunal found that the activity before and after retendering was the replacement of kitchens in NLC's social housing stock. It rejected the argument that the move from a measured term contract to a bill of approximate quantities contract, the change in geographical lot structure, or the existence of snagging work meant the activities were not fundamentally the same. It found there was no work in progress, little or no change in scope or quantity, and no fragmentation of the service into different components or functions.
On the organised grouping issue, the tribunal held that the first respondent had consciously and deliberately formed two teams working exclusively on the NLC contract immediately before the transfer. It accepted that the claimants worked in teams and that cover between teams or on other contracts was infrequent. It also held that the contract was not for a single specific event or task of short-term duration, noting evidence that NLC intended a further rolling programme of kitchen replacements.
The tribunal concluded that all of the claimants were assigned to the organised grouping of employees that transferred, including Mr Daly, whose work on another contract was found to be de minimis. It held that a service provision change took place on 14 August 2017 in relation to the third respondent and on 15 August 2017 in relation to the second respondent. Appendix B claimants transferred to MITIE Property Services and appendix A claimants transferred to McTear Contract Limited. The claims directed at the first respondent were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed against the first respondent because the tribunal found a TUPE service provision change and held that the claimants' contracts transferred to the second or third respondent; this judgment did not determine the substantive merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed against the first respondent because the tribunal found a TUPE service provision change and held that the claimants' contracts transferred to the second or third respondent; this judgment did not determine the substantive merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed against the first respondent because the tribunal found a TUPE service provision change and held that the claimants' contracts transferred to the second or third respondent; this judgment did not determine the substantive merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed against the first respondent because the tribunal found a TUPE service provision change and held that the claimants' contracts transferred to the second or third respondent; this judgment did not determine the substantive merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed against the first respondent because the tribunal found a TUPE service provision change and held that the claimants' contracts transferred to the second or third respondent; this judgment did not determine the substantive merits. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) TUPE 2006
- Regulation 3(3)(a)(i) TUPE 2006
- Regulation 4(1) TUPE 2006
- Kimberley v Hambley
- Enterprise Management Services Ltd v Connect Up Ltd
- Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman
- Seawell Ltd v Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd
- Duncan Web Offset
- Liddell's Coaches v Cook
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.