Case 4112434/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Simons Alvarez v - Solicitor Mr W T Mcaneney — 2022
- Case reference
- 4112434/2021
- Decision date
- 12 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Simons Alvarez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 1 September 2022, Employment Judge M Kearns held that Mr R Simons Alvarez had been employed at all relevant times by Ecco Vino (Edinburgh) Limited. The tribunal relied on the wording of the 1 November 2019 contract, the claimant's contemporaneous payslips, NEST correspondence, the P45, and the claimant's evidence, and it rejected the fourth and fifth respondents' inconsistent account that he was employed by other entities or by a payroll provider.
The tribunal also held that there had been no relevant transfer under TUPE from the first respondent to the second or third respondent, because there was no evidence of any transaction or transfer of employment contracts. It therefore left the fourth and fifth respondents as parties only in relation to the section 47B ERA 1996 claims. The judgment did not determine the merits of the underlying whistleblowing, unfair dismissal, or holiday pay claims, and no remedy was awarded at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | At the preliminary hearing the tribunal found there had been no relevant transfer from the first respondent to any other party, so the alleged TUPE transfer claim could not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896
- Regulation 3 TUPE 2006
- Regulation 4 TUPE 2006
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.