Cleaner unfairly dismissed after cleaning contract changed hands: TUPE transfer
A cleaner with four years' service was found to be automatically unfairly dismissed when the new cleaning contractor refused to take him on. The tribunal awarded £1,372.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a cleaner for the first respondent at the second respondent's premises from July 2017.
- The second respondent terminated its cleaning contract with the first respondent and awarded a new contract to the third respondent for cleaning its new premises.
- The claimant was not taken on by the third respondent and was effectively dismissed.
- The tribunal found a service provision change under TUPE, so the claimant's employment transferred to the third respondent.
- The third respondent's failure to employ the claimant rendered the dismissal automatically unfair and in breach of contract.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work
Claimant commenced employment with the first respondent as a cleaner at the second respondent's premises.
-
Second respondent gave notice
The second respondent gave 90 days' notice to terminate the cleaning contract with the first respondent.
-
Move to new premises
The second respondent moved to new offices; the claimant found the old premises closed with a notice.
-
Claimant informed of lay-off
The claimant's manager told him he would be laid off and later that he would transfer to the new cleaning company.
-
First respondent wrote to third respondent
The first respondent asserted that TUPE applied and the claimant's employment had transferred to the third respondent.
-
Third respondent rejected TUPE
The third respondent replied that TUPE did not apply and refused to take on the claimant.
-
P45 issued
The first respondent issued the claimant's P45.
-
Claim form submitted
The claimant submitted his claim to the employment tribunal.
-
Merits hearing
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions over two days.
-
Reserved judgment sent
The tribunal's judgment on liability and remedy was sent to the parties.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a service provision change under TUPE regulations took place when the cleaning contract moved from one company to another, and whether the new contractor was liable for dismissing the employee.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the cleaner was automatically unfairly dismissed by the third respondent, Ms Z Nicholson (trading as "Hestia Cleaning Services").
The key reason was that a service provision change under TUPE had occurred, meaning the cleaner's employment transferred to the new contractor automatically. By refusing to take him on, the new contractor dismissed him for a reason connected to the transfer, which is automatically unfair.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £588.06
- Compensatory award: £392.04
- Breach of contract (notice pay): £392.04
- Total: £1,372.14
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work for a contractor that loses a contract and a new contractor takes over, your employment may automatically transfer under TUPE – the new contractor cannot simply refuse to take you on.
- A service provision change can occur even if the new contractor argues otherwise; the tribunal will look at whether the activities carried out after the transfer are fundamentally the same.
- If you are dismissed because of a TUPE transfer, the dismissal is automatically unfair – you do not need to show the employer acted unreasonably.
- You can bring claims against multiple respondents if there is a dispute about who your employer is after a transfer.
When a cleaning contract changed hands, the cleaner was left in limbo
The cleaner had worked for the first cleaning company for over four years, cleaning the offices of a firm of chartered accountants. When the accountants moved to new premises and awarded the cleaning contract to a different company, the cleaner was told he would be laid off and then that he would transfer to the new contractor. But the new contractor refused to take him on, arguing that TUPE did not apply.
The cleaner was left without a job and without pay. He brought a claim to the employment tribunal, acting for himself with the help of an interpreter.
The tribunal found a TUPE transfer had taken place
The tribunal looked at the definition of a service provision change under TUPE. It found that the activities carried out by the cleaner – cleaning the accountants' offices – were fundamentally the same before and after the change. The fact that the accountants had moved to new premises did not break the link. The cleaner was assigned to an organised grouping of employees whose principal purpose was to carry out the cleaning activities for the client.
Because a service provision change had occurred, the cleaner's employment automatically transferred to the new contractor. By refusing to employ him, the new contractor dismissed him. The sole or principal reason for the dismissal was the transfer itself, making it automatically unfair.
What the losing side could have done differently
The new contractor could have taken legal advice on whether TUPE applied before refusing to take on the cleaner. Even if it believed TUPE did not apply, it could have offered to employ the cleaner on a trial basis or sought a declaration from the tribunal. Instead, it simply rejected the cleaner, leaving him with no income and forcing him to bring a claim.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that TUPE protections apply even when the client moves to new premises and changes contractor. Employees in cleaning, catering, security and other service industries should be aware that their employment may transfer automatically when a contract changes hands. If a new contractor refuses to take them on, they may have a claim for automatic unfair dismissal – and they do not need to prove the employer acted unreasonably.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal but 100% Polkey reduction due to workplace closure
A former employee was unfairly dismissed but received only limited compensation because the tribunal found he would have been fairly dismissed a month later when the workplace closed. Total award: £12,419.29.
Unfair dismissal and breach of contract: employer who failed to respond hit with default judgment
A former employee has won £4,467.57 after their employer failed to respond to an unfair dismissal and breach of contract claim, leading to a default judgment.
Kitchen manager dismissed without consultation in redundancy: unfair dismissal
A kitchen manager with two years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer made her redundant without any consultation or warning. The tribunal awarded £4,809.49 in compensation.
Butcher awarded £11,871 after redundancy dismissal with no notice or holiday pay
A former butcher won £11,871 after his employer failed to pay notice, holiday pay, or a redundancy payment and did not attend the tribunal hearing.