Case 4108981/2021 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4108981/2021 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on January 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: M Watt Tribunal Member: A Ward Ross Glanville v Mariusz Batog trading as Batog Cleaning Service — 2022
- Case reference
- 4108981/2021
- Decision date
- 15 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo Macleod
- Panel members
- M Watt, A Ward
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4108981/2021 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on January 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: M Watt Tribunal Member: A Ward Ross Glanville
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ross Glanville, was employed by Accelerate Cleaning Solutions Limited and carried out the cleaning of the common parts at 76 George Street in Edinburgh. The tribunal found that on 9 November 2020 the respondent, Mariusz Batog trading as Batog Cleaning Service, attended the building in connection with the cleaning contract, and that ACS then informed the claimant that the 76 George Street cleaning role remained current but would end on 31 January 2021 and was, in its view, within TUPE.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence and found Mr Batog's evidence more difficult to accept. It concluded that the cleaning service previously performed by ACS ceased and was taken over by the respondent with effect from 31 January 2021, amounting to a service provision change under TUPE regulation 3(b)(ii). It also found that the claimant was assigned to an organised grouping of employees whose principal purpose was carrying out the relevant activities, so his contract should have transferred to the respondent under regulation 4.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent's actions effectively dismissed the claimant when his employment was not recognised after the transfer date. Applying TUPE regulation 7, it found that the sole reason for the dismissal was the transfer, so the dismissal was unfair. The claim succeeded.
In remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £178.20, calculated by reference to two completed years' service and weekly pay of £89.10. It found that the claimant had made reasonable efforts to mitigate loss and awarded £2,762.10 for loss of earnings for 31 weeks from 31 January 2021 to 6 September 2021, together with £250 for loss of employment rights and £445.50 for 25 days' outstanding holiday. The total award was £3,457.60.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the cleaning service at 76 George Street transferred from ACS to the respondent under TUPE regulation 3(b)(ii), that the claimant's contract transferred under regulation 4, and that his dismissal on 31 January 2021 was solely because of that transfer within regulation 7. | Upheld | — | £3,458 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,458
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £178
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,762
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- TUPE Regulation 3(b)(ii) service provision change
- TUPE Regulation 4
- TUPE Regulation 7
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.