Claimant v Birmingham City Council

Outcome

Facts

The claimant was employed by Capita from January 2016 with contractual entitlement to private medical insurance. His employment transferred to Birmingham City Council under TUPE on 31 July 2019, with his Capita terms protected. In 2022-23, the Council reorganised its IT&D department ('Shaping the Future'), creating new roles and seeking to move all staff onto standard Council contracts without private medical insurance. The claimant applied for and was appointed to a new role in March 2023, accepting changes to pay, hours and holiday. However, he was never provided with a new contract, was not clearly told he would lose medical insurance, and when it was removed in July 2023, he immediately objected and refused to sign settlement agreements offering payment to surrender the benefit.

Decision

The tribunal found no valid variation of the claimant's contract to remove private medical insurance. The respondent failed to prove the claimant knew about or agreed to losing this benefit - he was not given the new contract, was not clearly informed, and protested immediately when the insurance was stopped. Even if there had been a variation, it would have been void under TUPE regulation 4(4) as the principal reason was the transfer itself (harmonising ex-Capita staff terms), and no valid ETO reason existed for removing this specific benefit. The Section 14 Wording should remain in the claimant's statement of employment particulars.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited