Five workers unfairly dismissed after TUPE transfer missed them out
Five employees of Westfield Shovels Limited were unfairly dismissed when their jobs were lost to a service change. The tribunal found they should have been transferred to the new contractor, not made redundant.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimants were employed by Westfield Shovels Limited until 31 December 2020.
- Westfield provided services to Associated British Ports at Immingham port until 31 December 2020.
- On 31 December 2020, some Westfield employees transferred to ABP under TUPE, but the claimants did not.
- The claimants were dismissed by Westfield on 31 December 2020 by reason of redundancy.
- Westfield failed to adequately consult, select, or seek alternative employment for the claimants.
- The claimants succeeded in claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay, and redundancy payment.
Timeline
-
Darren Harper started employment
Darren Harper commenced employment with Westfield Shovels Limited as Engineering Manager.
-
Owen Brammer started employment
Owen Brammer commenced employment with Westfield Shovels Limited as Multi Skilled Operator.
-
David White started employment
David White commenced employment with Westfield Shovels Limited as Multi Skilled Operative/Mobile Plant, Hydraulic Hose Engineer.
-
Daniel Hickson started employment
Daniel Hickson commenced employment with Westfield Shovels Limited as Multi Skilled Operator.
-
John Farley started employment
John Farley commenced employment with Westfield Shovels Limited as Multi Skilled Operator.
-
ABP gave notice to terminate
ABP gave Westfield notice to end all services at the Port of Immingham effective 31 December 2020.
-
Employment terminated
All five claimants were dismissed by Westfield Shovels Limited. 10 other employees transferred to ABP under TUPE.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
All claimants began early conciliation with ACAS.
-
ET1 presented
Joint claim presented to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Final hearing (part 1) started
First part of the final hearing held remotely, hearing evidence from claimants and Mr Chapman.
-
Final hearing (part 2) started
Second part of the final hearing held remotely, hearing further evidence and submissions.
-
Judgment on liability
Employment Judge Shore issued reserved judgment finding claimants unfairly dismissed and not transferred under TUPE.
-
Remedy hearing
Remedy hearing held; total awards made to each claimant.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimants' employment transferred to Associated British Ports or Scanmech under TUPE, and if not, whether their dismissal by Westfield Shovels Limited was unfair and whether they were entitled to notice pay, holiday pay, and a redundancy payment.
The outcome
The tribunal found all five claimants were unfairly dismissed by Westfield Shovels Limited. They were also entitled to wrongful dismissal damages, holiday pay, and statutory redundancy payments.
- Unfair dismissal: succeeded for all claimants
- Wrongful dismissal: succeeded for all claimants
- Holiday pay: succeeded for all claimants
- Redundancy payment: succeeded for all claimants
A separate remedy hearing was scheduled to determine the exact compensation amounts.
Lessons & takeaways
- When a service contract ends, check whether TUPE applies to your role — if you are assigned to an organised grouping of employees, you may transfer automatically.
- Employers must consult individually with at-risk employees and consider alternative roles before making them redundant, even if the business is losing a contract.
- Dismissing employees without proper process — such as failing to seek suitable alternative employment — will likely be found unfair by a tribunal.
- Claimants can bring multiple claims together (unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay, redundancy) in a single tribunal claim.
- Representing yourself is possible but challenging; the tribunal will still apply the law strictly, so gather evidence of any failures in process.
When a service change leaves workers behind
Five workers at Westfield Shovels Limited lost their jobs on 31 December 2020 when the company's contract with Associated British Ports ended. Ten other employees transferred to ABP under TUPE, but these five did not — and were dismissed by reason of redundancy. They had between 4 and 17 years of service.
The tribunal found that Westfield had failed to consult with the claimants properly, did not consider alternative employment, and carried out no fair selection process. The dismissals were therefore unfair. The claimants also succeeded in claims for wrongful dismissal (notice pay), holiday pay, and statutory redundancy payments.
What the employer did wrong
Westfield argued that the dismissals were due to redundancy following the loss of the ABP contract. However, the tribunal noted that the company had not followed any of the basic steps expected in a redundancy situation: there was no individual consultation, no objective selection criteria, and no search for alternative roles within the business or the wider group.
The employer also failed to consider whether the claimants might have transferred to the new contractor under TUPE. While the tribunal ultimately found that TUPE did not apply because the claimants were not part of an organised grouping of employees assigned to the contract, the employer's failure to explore this possibility contributed to the unfairness.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that when a service contract ends, the employer must still follow a fair redundancy procedure for those who do not transfer. Simply dismissing employees because the work has gone is not enough — consultation, fair selection, and consideration of alternatives are essential.
For employees in similar situations, the key is to check whether TUPE might apply. If it does, your employment should transfer automatically to the new contractor. If not, you are still entitled to a fair redundancy process and, if you have two years' service, the right to claim unfair dismissal if that process is not followed.
Similar cases
Four night drivers unfairly dismissed after employer wrongly assumed TUPE transfer
Four HGV night drivers with up to 12 years' service were unfairly dismissed when their employer assumed their jobs would transfer to a new contractor under TUPE, but the tribunal found no organised grouping existed.
Hotel employee with 17 years' service wins unfair dismissal and unpaid pension claim
A hotel employee of 17 years was unfairly dismissed and awarded over £15,000 after her employer deducted pension contributions without paying them in and failed to follow redundancy procedures.
Head of Operations dismissed while on furlough after maternity leave: unfair redundancy
A tribunal found that Vespertine Holidays Ltd unfairly dismissed a Head of Operations with 16 years' service, who discovered her redundancy only when she received a P45. She was awarded £34,282.
Unfair dismissal after redundancy: employer in liquidation fails to defend claim
A former employee of Arnold Sanderson Limited has been awarded nearly £30,000 after the company dismissed him by reason of redundancy and failed to respond to his tribunal claim.