Cases→3205811/2022

Claimant v British Telecom Limited

19 March 2025Before Employment Judge L Howden-EvansEast Londonremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Failure to Inform & Consultsucceeded

The tribunal found that both the First and Second Respondents failed to comply with Regulation 13 TUPE. The Second Respondent failed to provide the First Respondent with information about the Salary Above Maximum (SAM) policy and changes to Ms Freer-Ash's pay progression entitlements in sufficient time before the transfer on 1 July 2022. The First Respondent, having become aware of the measures on 22 June 2022, failed to formally inform the Claimant in writing. These measures had a significant detrimental impact on affected employees' future pay entitlements.

Facts

Seven employees transferred from British Telecom to HMRC on 1 July 2022 under TUPE. During collective consultation meetings in May and June 2022, HMRC gave inaccurate assurances that transferring employees would receive the same pay increases as HMRC staff. In fact, HMRC's Salary Above Maximum (SAM) policy meant employees whose salaries were above the maximum for their grade would not receive meaningful pay increases for several years. This was not disclosed until 22 June 2022, only 9 days before transfer, and was never properly communicated to the union.

Decision

The tribunal found both respondents breached TUPE Regulation 13. HMRC failed to provide BT with accurate information about the SAM policy and its impact on future pay, despite completing mapping by 25 May 2022 and being repeatedly told about BT's pay policy. BT failed to formally inform the union in writing about the measures once it became aware of them on 22 June 2022. There were no special circumstances justifying these failures.

Practical note

Transferees must provide accurate information about policies affecting transferring employees' terms and conditions in good time to allow meaningful consultation, particularly where those policies differ materially from the transferor's established practices.

Legal authorities cited

Cable Realisations v GMB Northern UKEAT/0538/08/DASweetin v Coral Racing 2006 IRLR 252Communication Workers Union v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2009] ICR 357Institution of Professional Civil Servants v Ministry of Defence [1987] 3 CMLR 35

Statutes

EU Council Directive 2001/23/EC Article 7.1TUPE 2006 Regulation 15TUPE 2006 Regulation 13

Case details

Case number
3205811/2022
Decision date
19 March 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
British Telecom Limited
Sector
telecoms
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →