Field engineers dismissed after employer wrongly claimed TUPE transfer: £114,504 awarded
Four field engineers were unfairly dismissed when their employer told them they had transferred to a new contractor under TUPE, but no transfer had occurred. The tribunal awarded over £114,000 in total.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimants were field engineers employed by Kalamazoo IT Limited.
- The respondent lost a contract with Cegedim and claimed the claimants transferred to CDW under TUPE.
- The tribunal found no organised grouping of employees dedicated to the Cegedim contract.
- The respondent dismissed the claimants without notice, asserting a TUPE transfer that did not occur.
- The dismissals were both substantively and procedurally unfair.
Timeline
-
Loss of contract
Cegedim informed Kalamazoo IT that it would not renew the contract.
-
Team meeting
Nigel Dunn informed claimants they would be TUPE transferred to CDW.
-
Contract end
Cegedim contract expired.
-
Dismissal
Respondent told claimants they had transferred to CDW and were no longer employed by Kalamazoo.
-
Appeal
Claimants appealed, arguing no transfer occurred; respondent refused to hear appeal.
-
Claim presented
Claimants filed claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal.
-
Final hearing
Four-day hearing commenced at Birmingham Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment
Tribunal found dismissals unfair and wrongful; awarded compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the field engineers were part of an 'organised grouping' of employees dedicated to the lost contract, which would have triggered a TUPE transfer to the new contractor. If not, the dismissals were potentially unfair.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled in favour of all four claimants. The employer, Kalamazoo IT Limited, had lost a contract with Cegedim and told the engineers they would transfer to CDW under TUPE. When CDW refused, Kalamazoo dismissed them without notice, insisting the transfer had occurred. The tribunal found no organised grouping of employees existed for the Cegedim contract, so no TUPE transfer took place. The dismissals were therefore unfair and wrongful.
Compensation:
- Total: £114,504.45
- Basic awards: £28,698.58
- Compensatory awards: £74,434.83
- Notice pay and grossing up: £11,371.04
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are told you are being transferred under TUPE, check whether you are part of an organised grouping dedicated to the client's work — if not, the transfer may not apply.
- Employers should not dismiss employees based on an assumption that a TUPE transfer has occurred without clear evidence from the new contractor.
- Refusing to hear an employee's appeal against dismissal can make an already unfair dismissal even more procedurally flawed.
- Seek legal advice promptly if your employer tries to end your employment by claiming a transfer that you believe is incorrect.
When a TUPE transfer goes wrong
Four field engineers were left without jobs or income when their employer, Kalamazoo IT Limited, told them they had been transferred to a new company under TUPE rules. The engineers worked on a contract for Cegedim, which Kalamazoo lost to CDW. Kalamazoo informed the engineers they would transfer to CDW, but CDW refused to take them. Instead of acknowledging the error, Kalamazoo dismissed the engineers without notice, insisting the transfer had occurred.
What the tribunal found
The tribunal ruled that no TUPE transfer had taken place because the engineers were not part of an 'organised grouping' dedicated to the Cegedim contract. They were field engineers who worked across multiple contracts. Kalamazoo had no reasonable basis to believe a transfer had occurred and failed to consult or follow proper redundancy procedures. The dismissals were both substantively and procedurally unfair.
What could have been done differently
Kalamazoo could have sought confirmation from CDW before acting. If a redundancy situation had arisen, proper consultation and notice should have been given. Instead, the company refused to hear the engineers' appeal, compounding the procedural failure.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of getting TUPE advice before making assumptions about transfers. Employees who are told they are being transferred should verify the position and seek legal advice if their employer tries to dismiss them based on an incorrect belief.
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.
Dismissed after 17 years because new operator refused to take her on: automatic unfair dismissal under TUPE
A petrol station employee with 17 years' service was automatically unfairly dismissed when the incoming operator refused to hire her. The tribunal awarded £29,242.10, with the transferee held solely liable.
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.
Missed redundancy interview: long-serving project manager loses unfair dismissal claim
A project manager with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after failing to attend a competitive interview. The tribunal rejected claims that his role as an employee representative or his grievances were the real reason.