Security guard wins redundancy pay after 13-year assignment ends
A security guard with 13 years' service on the same assignment was awarded redundancy pay after his employer failed to offer suitable alternative work before the assignment ended. The tribunal rejected claims for unfair dismissal and unpaid wages.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #zero-hour-contract
- #mobility-clause
- #constructive-dismissal
- #unlawful-deduction
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a security guard on the same PGS assignment for 13 years.
- PGS terminated its contract with the respondent, ending the assignment on 8 February 2022.
- The respondent initiated a redundancy consultation process but did not invoke the mobility clause before the assignment ended.
- The claimant refused alternative assignments due to distance, travel time, and lack of guaranteed hours.
- The claimant was not offered suitable alternative employment before the termination of the PGS assignment.
- The claimant remained employed under a zero-hour overarching contract after the assignment ended.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a security officer with Advance Security.
-
TUPE transfer to PCL
Claimant transferred to PCL Whitehall Security Group under TUPE, receiving a PCL contract and a PGS assignment contract.
-
PGS termination notice
PGS gave 3 months' notice to end its contract with the respondent due to site closure.
-
Redundancy warning letter
Claimant received a letter forewarning of potential redundancy and commencement of consultation.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant met with Mr Crawley; discussed three alternative assignments, all declined.
-
PGS assignment ended
PGS assignment terminated; claimant received no further work or pay from this date.
-
Further consultation meeting
Claimant and Mr Crawley discussed available assignments; claimant found none suitable.
-
Trial period at ABP Guildford
Claimant started a 4-week trial at ABP Guildford but attended only one day due to health and suitability issues.
-
Reallocation meeting
Meeting to discuss alternatives; claimant declined all options; agreed to aim for end date of 8 June 2022.
-
Claimant started new employment
Claimant commenced new job, considering his contract with respondent terminated.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed from his assignment and entitled to redundancy pay, and whether he was constructively dismissed or owed wages under a zero-hour overarching contract.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim for redundancy pay, finding that the claimant was dismissed from his assignment on 8 February 2022 when the PGS contract ended and no suitable alternative was offered. The amount of redundancy pay is to be determined at a remedy hearing.
The tribunal rejected the claims for unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal because there was no dismissal from the overarching zero-hour contract – the claimant remained employed under that contract after the assignment ended.
The claim for unlawful deduction of wages between February and July 2022 was also dismissed, as the overarching contract was a zero-hour contract and the claimant was not entitled to pay when no work was offered or accepted.
- Redundancy pay: amount to be determined
- Unfair dismissal: not upheld (no dismissal)
- Unlawful deduction of wages: not upheld (zero-hour contract)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees on long-term assignments under zero-hour contracts may still be entitled to redundancy pay when the assignment ends if no suitable alternative work is offered.
- Employers should clearly invoke mobility clauses and offer suitable alternatives before an assignment ends to avoid redundancy obligations.
- A zero-hour overarching contract does not guarantee pay when no work is available, but it also means the employee is not dismissed if the assignment ends.
- Employees considering constructive dismissal should ensure they resign in response to a fundamental breach and not delay, to avoid affirming the contract.
- Length of service on a specific assignment can create an expectation of continued work, even under a zero-hour contract.
A long-term assignment ends, but the contract continues
This case highlights the complexities that can arise when a security guard works on the same site for 13 years under a zero-hour overarching contract. When the client terminated its contract with the employer, the guard's assignment ended, but his overarching employment continued. The employer began a redundancy consultation but did not formally invoke a mobility clause or offer suitable alternative work before the assignment ended.
The guard refused several alternative assignments due to distance, travel time, and lack of guaranteed hours. He later tried a trial period at one site but attended only one day due to health and suitability concerns. Eventually, he found new employment and considered his contract terminated.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the guard was entitled to redundancy pay because the assignment ended due to the client's contract termination, and the employer had not offered suitable alternative employment before that date. The redundancy pay amount will be determined at a later hearing.
However, the tribunal rejected the guard's claims for unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal. Because the overarching zero-hour contract continued after the assignment ended, there was no dismissal from that contract. The guard remained employed, even though he received no work or pay. Similarly, the claim for unpaid wages failed because the zero-hour contract did not guarantee pay when no work was offered.
What this means for similar claims
For employees on zero-hour contracts with long-term assignments, this case shows that redundancy rights can still arise when an assignment ends, even if the overarching contract continues. Employers should act promptly to offer suitable alternatives or invoke contractual flexibility to avoid redundancy obligations.
For employers, the case is a reminder that a mobility clause must be actively used, not just relied upon in theory. Failing to offer suitable alternatives before an assignment ends can trigger a statutory redundancy payment, even if the employee remains on the books under a zero-hour contract.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed after employer ignored redundancy request for 39 days
A former People Advisor who resigned after her employer failed to respond to her redundancy request for 39 days has been allowed to pursue claims for a redundancy payment and constructive unfair dismissal.
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
18-year employee loses constructive dismissal claim over flexible working refusal
An engineer with 18 years' service resigned after his request for a four-day week was refused. The employment tribunal found his employer had reasonable cause and dismissed the claim.
Constructive dismissal after 15 years: race harassment and unpaid holiday pay
A former employee with 15 years' service was constructively dismissed after a campaign of race harassment. The tribunal awarded over £34,000 including £21,000 for injury to feelings.