Minibus drivers with 17 and 26 years' service win automatic unfair dismissal claim after school contract changed hands
Two long-serving minibus drivers were found to have been automatically unfairly dismissed when a school transport contract was awarded to a new provider who refused to take them on. The tribunal awarded a total of £47,584.72.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #tupe-transfer
- #automatic-unfair-dismissal
- #minibus-driver
- #school-transport-contract
- #organized-grouping
- #failure-to-inform-and-consult
Key facts
- The claimants were employed as minibus drivers by the First Respondent, primarily working on a school transport contract for TASIS.
- The TASIS contract was re-tendered and awarded to the Second Respondent from 1 August 2021.
- The First Respondent maintained that TUPE applied and the claimants should transfer, but the Second Respondent disputed this.
- The claimants' employment with the First Respondent ended on 31 July 2021 without transferring to the Second Respondent.
- The Tribunal found that there was a service provision change and the claimants were assigned to an organized grouping, so their employment should have transferred.
- The Second Respondent did not advance an ETO reason for dismissal, making the dismissals automatically unfair.
Timeline
-
Second claimant started employment
Mr Jackson commenced employment as a PCV driver with the First Respondent or predecessor.
-
First claimant started employment
Mr Howard commenced employment as a minibus driver with the First Respondent or predecessor.
-
TASIS contract re-tendered
The TASIS school transport contract came up for re-tender.
-
Second Respondent notified First Respondent of contract award
Second Respondent wrote to First Respondent stating they had been awarded the TASIS contract and requesting employee information.
-
First Respondent provided employee information
First Respondent sent a list of employees to Second Respondent.
-
Second Respondent disputed TUPE application
Second Respondent wrote that they did not believe TUPE applied to the claimants as they were not wholly assigned to the contract.
-
Second Respondent held consultation meetings
Second Respondent met with the claimants to discuss potential transfer.
-
Meeting between respondents
Meeting involving Peninsula Services (Second Respondent's advisers) where Second Respondent maintained its position that the claimants did not form part of an organized grouping.
-
Claimants' employment ended
The claimants' employment with the First Respondent ceased.
-
TUPE transfer date
The TASIS contract transferred to the Second Respondent.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the two minibus drivers' employment transferred automatically to the new contractor under TUPE following a service provision change, and if so, whether their dismissal was automatically unfair.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the claimants' employment transferred to the Second Respondent on 1 August 2021 under TUPE. Their dismissals were automatically unfair because the new employer did not rely on an economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reason.
Compensation:
- First claimant (17 years' service): £24,898.72 (basic award £12,512, compensatory award £6,391.76, notice pay £5,544.96, loss of statutory rights £450)
- Second claimant (26 years' service): £22,686 (basic award £16,320, notice pay £5,916, loss of statutory rights £450)
- Total: £47,584.72
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work on a contract that is retendered and awarded to a new provider, check whether TUPE applies – you may have a right to transfer automatically.
- Employers who take over a service contract should carefully assess whether the employees form an organised grouping assigned to that contract; refusing to take them on can lead to automatic unfair dismissal claims.
- Even if a new employer believes TUPE does not apply, they must have an ETO reason to dismiss employees who should have transferred; otherwise the dismissal is automatically unfair.
- Long-serving employees can receive substantial basic awards – up to 20 years' capped service – so the financial risk for employers who get TUPE wrong is significant.
When a school bus contract changes hands
Two minibus drivers who had worked on a school transport contract for 17 and 26 years respectively found themselves out of work when the contract was awarded to a new provider. The old employer said they should transfer; the new employer disagreed. In the end, neither took them on, and the drivers were dismissed.
The tribunal had to unpick whether the drivers were part of an 'organised grouping' of employees assigned to the contract – the key test under TUPE. It concluded that they were. The drivers spent virtually all their working time on the school runs, starting and finishing at home with their buses. That was enough to trigger a transfer.
What the new employer could have done differently
The new contractor, First Choice Mini-Bus Service Limited, argued that the drivers were not wholly assigned to the TASIS contract. But the tribunal found that the organised grouping test does not require 100% assignment – it is enough that the employees are 'assigned' to the contract. The new employer also failed to advance any economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reason for dismissal, which made the dismissals automatically unfair.
If the new employer had properly assessed the TUPE position and, if it genuinely believed the drivers were not covered, sought a declaration from a tribunal before dismissing, it might have avoided liability. Alternatively, if it had an ETO reason (such as reorganisation), it could have defended a fair dismissal claim.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that TUPE rights are not optional. When a service contract changes hands, employees who are assigned to that contract – even if they also do other work – may transfer automatically. Employers who refuse to accept them risk automatic unfair dismissal claims, with uncapped compensation for long-serving staff.
The total award of £47,584.72 reflects the drivers' long service and the fact that they were unrepresented. The case also shows that tribunals will look at the reality of how work is organised, not just contractual labels.
Similar cases
TUPE transfer and unpaid wages: dismissal without notice on transfer day
A Data Partnerships Manager was dismissed without notice on the day his employer announced a TUPE transfer. The tribunal awarded £11,670 for breach of contract and £7,423 for failure to inform and consult.
Cleaner dismissed on TUPE transfer day: automatic unfair dismissal
A cleaner with 12 years' service was dismissed on the day her employment transferred to a new company. The tribunal found the dismissal automatically unfair and awarded £3,025.24, including an uplift for ignoring her grievance.
Chef unfairly dismissed after TUPE transfer: employer failed to inform and consult
A chef was unfairly dismissed after her employment transferred to a new company under TUPE. The tribunal awarded over £12,800 for unfair dismissal, plus compensation for failure to inform and consult, unpaid holiday pay, and lost pension contributions.
Dismissed on the day of a TUPE transfer: automatic unfair dismissal and age discrimination
A production manager with 13 years' service was dismissed without notice on the day his employment transferred to a new company. The tribunal found automatic unfair dismissal and direct age discrimination, awarding over £130,000.