Claimant v Rollandene Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found there was a relevant transfer under TUPE from the 1st to 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent transferred its care home business (8 residents) to the 2nd respondent's homes on 29 June 2021. The tribunal concluded that there was both a transfer of an undertaking (privately funded residents) and a service provision change (socially funded residents). Laura Smith and Leah Newman should have transferred employment to the 2nd respondent under TUPE on that date.
The tribunal found a failure to carry out collective consultation under s.188 TULCRA. The 1st respondent had over 20 employees, proposed redundancies, and did not consult with staff or trade union representatives. Information was disseminated informally, nothing in writing, and no proper consultation process took place. The tribunal deferred the question of which respondent is liable to a remedy hearing.
Facts
The 1st respondent operated Adamwood Nursing Home caring for 10 elderly residents. Following a poor Care Inspectorate report in June 2021, the 1st respondent decided to close. Eight residents transferred to two care homes run by the 2nd respondent on 29 June 2021. There was no written agreement, but the 2nd respondent paid a price calculated by reference to each resident. Staff were told Adamwood was closing, but no formal consultation took place. Some staff, including lead claimants Laura Smith (a Senior Charge Nurse who worked regular night shifts for ~20 years) and Leah Newman (a Care Assistant), were not automatically transferred. The 2nd respondent required staff to apply and interview for positions.
Decision
The tribunal found there was a TUPE transfer on 29 June 2021 — a transfer of undertaking regarding privately funded residents and a service provision change for socially funded residents. Laura Smith was an employee (not 'bank staff'), and both she and Leah Newman should have transferred to the 2nd respondent automatically under TUPE. The tribunal also found a failure to consult collectively under s.188 TULCRA, as the 1st respondent had over 20 employees and made no proper consultation. A remedy hearing was ordered to determine protective awards and allocation of liability.
Practical note
TUPE applies where residents and the business of caring for them transfers to a new provider, even without a written agreement or transfer of premises. 'Bank staff' may be employees if there is sufficient mutuality of obligation and control, assessed over the entire relationship. Failure to consult on collective redundancies can occur even where an employer mistakenly believes TUPE protects staff.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4110623/2021
- Decision date
- 7 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Charge Nurse (Laura Smith), Care Assistant (Leah Newman)
- Service
- 20 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister