Mr D Cornish v City Facilities Management (UK) Ltd: 4100903/2020
| Judgment Date | 18 June 2021 |
| Citation | 4100903/2020 |
| Published date | 06 August 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Transfer of Undertakings |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4100903/2020
5
Final Hearing Held remotely on 14 and 15 June 2021
Employment Judge A Kemp
Tribunal Member M McAllister
10
Tribunal Member J McElwee
Mr D Cornish Claimant
In person
15
City Facilities Management (UK) Ltd Respondent
Represented by:
Ms J Brunton
Solicitor
20
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is that
25
1. The claimant was dismissed by the respondent as a result of a
substantial change in his working conditions to his detriment under
Regulation 4(9) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of
Employment) Regulations 2006, the principal reason for that
dismissal was the transfer to the respondent, and the dismissal was
30
unfair as a result.
2. The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal under section 94 of the
Employment Rights Act 1996 is dismissed.
3. The claimant is awarded the sum of TWENTY THREE THOUSAND
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY TWO POUNDS FIFTY FOUR PENCE
35
(£23,132.54) payable by the respondent.
4100903/2020 Page 2
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant made what is normally referred to as a claim for constructive
dismissal against the respondent. He also made claims that the dismissal
5
was in breach of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)
Regulations 2006, usually known as TUPE. The Claim was denied. The
claimant confirmed that he did not make a claim for holiday pay. The
claims were therefore for unfair dismissal, and separately for a
redundancy payment. The respondent alleged that there was no
10
dismissal, but that if there was the reason for that was some other
substantial reason, and that it was fair. The respondent relied on an
economic, technical or organisational reason for any dismissal in relation
to arguments over Regulations 4 and 7 of TUPE. It was accepted that a
relevant transfer to the respondent had taken place.
15
2. There had been two earlier Preliminary Hearings in the case on 29 June
2020 and 25 February 2021 the latter date having been intended as the
Final Hearing but becoming one in effect for case management.
Issues
3. The Tribunal identified the following issues:
20
(i) Had the respondent dismissed the claimant under section 95(1)(c) of
the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the Act”)?
(ii) If so, what was the reason or principal reason for that dismissal?
(iii) If the reason was potentially fair under section 98(2), was that
dismissal unfair under section 98(4) of the Act?
25
(iv) Did the transfer of employment to the respondent on 1 April 2019
involve a substantial change in working conditions to the material
detriment of the claimant under Regulation 4(9) of the Transfer of
Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006?
(v) If so, was any dismissal for the sole or principal reason of an
30
economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in
the workforce after the transfer?
To continue reading
Request your trial