Beautician dismissed after salon sale while on maternity leave: TUPE transfer made dismissal automatically unfair
A beautician and store manager was dismissed by her employer shortly after the salon was sold to a new company while she was on maternity leave. The tribunal found a TUPE transfer had occurred and the dismissal was automatically unfair, awarding £3,943.77.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #tupe-transfer
- #maternity-leave
- #redundancy
- #unfair-dismissal
- #holiday-pay
- #notice-pay
- #statutory-maternity-pay
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a beautician and later promoted to store manager.
- She went on maternity leave on 17 March 2020 and her child was born on 5 May 2020.
- The first respondent sold the salon assets to the second respondent on 16 October 2020.
- The claimant was dismissed by the first respondent on 7 November 2020 with two weeks' notice.
- The tribunal found that a TUPE transfer occurred and the second respondent became the employer.
- The dismissal was automatically unfair because the reason was the transfer itself.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment with Gorj Limited as a beautician.
-
Promotion to store manager
Claimant was promoted to store manager due to her managerial abilities.
-
Maternity leave started
Claimant went on maternity leave.
-
Child born
Claimant gave birth.
-
Second respondent incorporated
Rose Beauty Bar Ltd was incorporated.
-
Claimant expressed wish to work 20 hours
Claimant informed first respondent she wanted to work 20 hours per week.
-
Asset sale agreement
First respondent sold salon equipment to second respondent.
-
Second respondent took over premises
Second respondent entered a new lease and opened for business.
-
Dismissal letter
First respondent sent claimant a letter of termination on grounds of 'demise of the business'.
-
Effective date of termination
Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the sale of the salon's assets amounted to a TUPE transfer, and if so, whether the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair because it was due to the transfer itself.
The outcome
The tribunal found that a TUPE transfer took place when the first respondent sold the salon assets to the second respondent, meaning the second respondent became the employer. The dismissal was automatically unfair as it was due to the transfer.
Compensation awarded:
- Basic award: £595.00
- Compensatory award: £500.00 (reduced from £605.14 due to a small error in calculation)
- Unpaid notice pay: £292.60
- Unpaid holiday pay: £1,304.87
- Statutory maternity pay: £635.30
- Total: £3,327.77 (plus an additional £616 for unpaid holiday pay, making the overall award £3,943.77)
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed shortly after your employer sells the business, check whether TUPE applies — the new owner may be liable for unfair dismissal.
- Employers cannot use a business sale as a reason to dismiss employees; if they do, the dismissal is automatically unfair under TUPE.
- Employees on maternity leave are protected; a dismissal connected to a transfer while on maternity leave is particularly likely to be unfair.
- Keep records of all communications about the sale and your employment status — they can be crucial evidence in tribunal.
A salon sale that left a new mother out of work
This case shows what can happen when a business changes hands and employees are not properly informed of their rights. The claimant, a beautician promoted to store manager, was on maternity leave when her employer sold the salon to a new company. She was told the new owner would not offer her a job, and she was dismissed shortly after. The tribunal found that the sale was a TUPE transfer, meaning her employment should have automatically transferred to the new owner. The dismissal was therefore automatically unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
The first respondent could have recognised that TUPE applied and ensured the claimant's employment transferred to the second respondent. Instead, they dismissed her because of the transfer, which is prohibited. The second respondent, as the transferee, should have taken on the claimant as an employee. Both respondents failed to understand their obligations under TUPE, leading to the automatic unfair dismissal finding.
Why this result matters
This decision reinforces that TUPE protections apply even when a business is sold as a going concern through an asset sale. Employees cannot be dismissed simply because of the transfer. For employees on maternity leave, the protection is even stronger. The award of over £3,900, including unpaid maternity pay, holiday pay, and notice pay, shows that tribunals will enforce these rights. Anyone in a similar situation should seek legal advice promptly, as claims must be brought within three months of dismissal.
Similar cases
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.
Dismissed by redundancy without pay: employer's failure to respond leads to £45,000 award
Two former employees of Cheshiregate Property Services were awarded over £45,000 after the company failed to defend claims of redundancy pay, notice pay, and unpaid wages.
Redundancy claims dismissed after claimants failed to attend hearing
Three former employees had their claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy pay and unpaid wages dismissed after they failed to attend the tribunal hearing and provided no evidence.