Claimant v Specialist Lining Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim was well-founded. This was likely connected to the TUPE transfer and the respondent's failure to inform or consult about the transfer, which can constitute an automatically unfair reason for dismissal.
The tribunal found the claim well founded and made a declaration to that effect. The respondents failed to comply with their obligations under TUPE to inform and consult the claimant about the transfer, leading to an award of £7,916.70.
The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded and determined the claimant was unfairly dismissed. However, the tribunal applied a 35% Polkey reduction, finding there was a 35% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed in March 2024 in circumstances involving a TUPE transfer between three related companies. The respondents failed to inform or consult the claimant about the TUPE transfer as required by law. The claimant brought claims for automatic unfair dismissal, unfair dismissal, and failure to inform or consult under TUPE, representing himself at a four-day hearing.
Decision
The tribunal found all three claims well-founded. The claimant succeeded in automatic unfair dismissal, unfair dismissal (with a 35% Polkey reduction), and failure to inform/consult under TUPE. The claimant was awarded £24,037.72 for unfair dismissal and £7,916.70 for the TUPE consultation failure, totaling £31,954.42.
Practical note
Employers must strictly comply with TUPE information and consultation obligations; failure to do so can result in both separate compensation awards and support findings of automatic unfair dismissal when a dismissal occurs in the context of a transfer.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
There was a 35% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201242/2024
- Decision date
- 21 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No