Cases6011662/2024

Claimant v The Granary Team Valley

7 March 2025Before Employment Judge MartinNewcastleremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£18,826

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the respondent fundamentally breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay her an additional £1 per hour above the national minimum wage which was a term that transferred under TUPE. The respondent also breached the implied term of trust and confidence through cumulative conduct including criticism of her work in front of staff, non-payment of tax, refusing holiday entitlement, and not paying pension contributions. The incident on 8 May 2024 was the final straw causing the claimant to resign.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal was automatically unfair under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations because it resulted from the transfer of the business and the change to the claimant's terms and conditions of employment, specifically the failure to honour the additional £1 per hour payment that was part of her contractual terms.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The tribunal found the respondent unlawfully deducted wages by failing to pay the claimant the additional £1 per hour above the national minimum wage for 5 weeks totalling £192.50, and failed to pay pension contributions of £74.70 over that period, for a total award of £267.20.

Breach of Contractsucceeded

The tribunal found a breach of contract based on the failure to pay the correct rate of wages including the additional £1 per hour above the national minimum wage, which was an express term of the claimant's contract that transferred under TUPE.

Holiday Paysucceeded

The tribunal found the respondent breached the Working Time Regulations by failing to pay the claimant for accrued but untaken holiday at the correct rate, which should have included the additional £1 per hour. The claimant was awarded £192.50 for this claim.

Facts

The claimant worked as a shop assistant for over 20 years before the business transferred to the respondent under TUPE on 25 March 2024. The claimant was contractually entitled to £1 per hour above the national minimum wage and had received bonus payments. After the transfer, the respondent refused to honour these payments despite documentary evidence from the previous owner. The respondent also failed to pay tax correctly, pension contributions, and holiday entitlement. The claimant raised concerns repeatedly but was criticized in front of staff and customers. On 8 May 2024, following a heated incident involving her colleague, the claimant resigned with immediate effect.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant was constructively and automatically unfairly dismissed. The respondent fundamentally breached the contract by failing to pay the additional £1 per hour which was a transferred term under TUPE, and breached the implied term of trust and confidence through cumulative conduct. The tribunal awarded £18,365.93 for unfair dismissal, £267.20 for unlawful deduction of wages and pension contributions, and £192.50 for holiday pay, totalling £18,825.63.

Practical note

On a TUPE transfer, all contractual terms transfer to the new employer, and failure to honour pay terms constitutes both a fundamental breach entitling the employee to resign and makes any dismissal automatically unfair under the TUPE Regulations.

Award breakdown

Basic award£12,176
Compensatory award£5,791
Holiday pay£193
Arrears of pay£193
Pension loss£186
Loss of statutory rights£500

Legal authorities cited

Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221Industrial Rubber Products v Gillon [1977] IRLR 2389Woods v W M Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd [1981] IRLR 347Mostyn v S & P Casuals Ltd UK EAT/0158/17Kaur v London Metropolitan Hospitals [2018] IRLR 840Lewis v Motor World GaragesOmilajuLewis v Dow Silicones UK Ltd [2024]Enterprise Managed Service v Dance UK EAT/0200/11

Statutes

TUPE 2006 Regulation 4(2)TUPE 2006 Regulation 4(4)TUPE 2006 Regulation 4(5)TUPE 2006 Regulation 4(9)TUPE 2006 Regulation 4(11)ERA 1996 s.95(1)(c)TUPE 2006 Regulation 4(1)

Case details

Case number
6011662/2024
Decision date
7 March 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
Shop Assistant
Service
25 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister