Cleaning supervisor's unfair dismissal claim fails due to insufficient service after TUPE transfer
A cleaning supervisor with four years' service was unable to bring an unfair dismissal claim because her continuous service fell short of the two-year requirement after a TUPE transfer. The tribunal also dismissed her race discrimination and TUPE consultation claims as out of time.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the second respondent as a cleaning supervisor from 31 July 2017.
- The cleaning contract transferred from the second respondent to the first respondent on 1 August 2021.
- The claimant was absent sick from 17 September 2021.
- The claimant presented her claim form on 15 March 2022.
- The claimant did not have two years' continuous service with the third respondent.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work for the second respondent as a cleaning supervisor on two contracts.
-
First alleged discrimination
Claimant was told by a representative of the first respondent that her hours had changed.
-
Letter from first respondent
Claimant received an unsigned letter from the first respondent about the transfer.
-
Third respondent's dismissal letter
Third respondent wrote to claimant stating her employment would end on 31 August 2021.
-
TUPE transfer
Cleaning contract transferred from second to first respondent.
-
Second alleged discrimination
Claimant was told she was no longer a supervisor and her hours changed.
-
Dismissal by third respondent
Claimant's employment with third respondent ended.
-
Sickness absence began
Claimant started sick leave and provided medical certificates.
-
Claim presented
Claim form received by Employment Tribunal Central Office.
-
Preliminary hearing
Hearing to determine jurisdiction and time limits.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and failure to consult under TUPE, given the claimant's length of service and the time limits for presenting her claims.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims except for a claim of unauthorised deductions from wages. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service with the first respondent after the TUPE transfer. The race discrimination claims were out of time because the alleged acts occurred in July and August 2021, but the claim was not presented until March 2022, well beyond the three-month limit. The TUPE consultation claim was also out of time. The second and third respondents were removed from the proceedings as there were no live claims against them.
- Unfair dismissal: dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (insufficient service)
- Race discrimination: dismissed as out of time
- TUPE consultation: dismissed as out of time
- Unauthorised deductions: to proceed to a further hearing
Lessons & takeaways
- Check your continuous service length carefully after a TUPE transfer – you may need two years with the new employer to claim unfair dismissal.
- Act quickly on discrimination claims: you generally have three months from the last act of discrimination to present your claim to the tribunal.
- Keep records of all communications and seek legal advice early if you think your rights have been breached.
- If you receive a dismissal letter from your old employer after a TUPE transfer, clarify your employment status immediately – the letter may be incorrect.
This case highlights the strict procedural hurdles that can block employment claims, even when the underlying facts suggest a genuine dispute. The claimant, a cleaning supervisor of African origin, had worked for the second respondent since July 2017. When the cleaning contract transferred to the first respondent under TUPE in August 2021, her employment should have transferred with it. However, the third respondent (the school) sent her a letter saying her employment would end on 31 August 2021 – a letter they later admitted was wrong.
Why the claims failed
The unfair dismissal claim fell at the first hurdle: the claimant did not have two years' continuous service with the first respondent. Although she had four years with the previous employer, TUPE preserves continuity of employment, but the tribunal found that she was not dismissed by the first respondent. Her claim was therefore outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
The race discrimination claims were also doomed by timing. The alleged acts – being told her hours had changed and that she was no longer a supervisor – occurred in July and August 2021. The claimant did not present her claim until March 2022, well beyond the three-month time limit. She argued that she was waiting for documents and had been unwell, but the tribunal found no reasonable excuse for the delay. The same fate befell her TUPE consultation complaint.
What could have been done differently
The claimant might have succeeded if she had sought advice sooner and presented her discrimination claims within the three-month window. Early conciliation, which she did start in November 2021, pauses the clock, but she still needed to act promptly after it ended. The tribunal noted that she had a lay representative and may not have understood the strict time limits – a common pitfall for unrepresented claimants.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment rights are not automatic. Even if you believe you have been treated unfairly, you must meet eligibility criteria like minimum service and strict time limits. TUPE transfers can complicate continuity, so it is vital to get legal advice as soon as a dispute arises. The tribunal did preserve one claim – for unauthorised deductions from wages – which will proceed to a hearing, showing that not all doors were closed.
Similar cases
Former employee's claims dismissed as out of time despite early conciliation
A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after the tribunal found they were presented too late, even though she had started early conciliation.
Chef's unfair dismissal claim fails after being presented one day late
A chef who was dismissed for gross misconduct after an allergen incident saw his unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction claims dismissed because they were presented to the tribunal one day after the statutory deadline.
Reinstated HGV driver allowed to pursue victimisation claim after dismissal overturned on appeal
An HGV driver with 12 years' service was reinstated after a successful appeal against dismissal for gross misconduct. The tribunal allowed his victimisation claims to proceed but dismissed direct race discrimination claims as out of time.
Race discrimination claim dismissed after social worker missed time limit
An experienced social worker's race discrimination and constructive dismissal claims against Devon County Council were dismissed because she presented her claim too late, and the tribunal refused to extend time.