Claimant v Aegon UK Corporate Services Limited

The tribunal found no substantial change to working conditions causing material detriment under TUPE reg 4(9). Although there was a change from hybrid to home working, the claimant's primary concern was health insurance. The tribunal found the claimant's view that home working was detrimental was unreasonable given he was only able to work at all due to medication, and other options (Swindon hub) existed.

The tribunal found no breach of contract. The mobility clause permitted changes to place of work including home working. The claimant's contractual entitlement was to 'family cover' health insurance, which was offered by the respondent. Even if there was a breach, it was not repudiatory as the change from 2 days to full-time home working was not fundamental to the role.

The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy under s.139(1)(a)(ii) ERA 1996 because the respondent ceased to carry on business in the place where the claimant was employed (Nationwide offices). However, the claimant unreasonably refused suitable alternative employment (same role based from home with access to Swindon hub), so no remedy was awarded.