Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

This case concerns a transfer of a window-cleaning contract (and therefore the employees engaged on that contract) from company A to company B. Company B refused to employ the employees engaged on the contract on their original terms but offered alternative employment prior to their dismissal. The employees refused and claimed that they were unfairly dismissed because of the TUPE transfer. They succeeded but company B appealed on the basis that the Employment Tribunal had failed to adequately consider whether the employees had reasonably refused to accept alternative employment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the Tribunal had 1) had reference to a wide range of circumstances in determining that the refusal was reasonable and 2) that the employees were under no duty to mitigate as the alternative employment had been offered prior to their dismissal.

The facts in F & G Cleaners v Saddington & Ors

Mr Saddington, Mr Oliver and a number of other persons (“the Claimants”) were employed by Actual Support Services Ltd (“Actual”) to provide services on a window-cleaning contract for the London Borough of Redbridge (“Redbridge”). In 2008 Redbridge re-tendered the contract and F & G Cleaners Ltd (“F & G”) successfully tendered for the contract. Actual then supplied information to F & G as to the nature of the terms of employment of its employees. F & G was suspicious of this and believed that Actual were inflating the value of the contracts of employment. It asked for further information from Actual prior to the handover date of 1 August 2008 but none was forthcoming. On 8 August 2008 Mrs Oliver asked F & G about her husband’s employment situation. F & G responded by stating that Mr Oliver had never and did not work for them. However, on 12 August a manager of F & G’s met with the Claimants and discussed alternative employment – ostensibly on the basis of a CIS contract (which would have meant that the Claimants were self-employed) instead of the contracts of employment they had previously worked under. This would have meant a reduction in their daily wage, a change to their working week, and a change to their holiday entitlement. The Claimants refused this offer and subsequently issued a claim in the Employment Tribunal for TUPE-related unfair dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the TUPE transfer of employment was the principal reason for the Claimants’ dismissal and that the Claimants had been automatically unfairly dismissed. F & G appealed on the basis that the Employment Tribunal had erred in not considering whether the Claimants had taken reasonable steps to mitigate their loss.

The law relating to mitigation of loss in TUPE unfair dismissal cases

It is well-established that dismissed employees have a duty to mitigate their loss (by finding new employment). A failure to mitigate loss can occur in the following circumstances:

  1. If the Claimant unreasonably fails to look for new employment; and/or
  2. If the Claimant unreasonably refuses an offer of work

We’ll be looking in this post at the second element, the refusal of alternative employment. If the Claimant refuses an offer of work (whether this offer is from their old employer or from a new third party) then their refusal must be reasonable in all the circumstances. What, therefore, affects the reasonableness of a decision to refuse an offer of alternative employment? The Tribunal will consider the following:

  1. The circumstances in which the offer was made and refused;
  2. The attitude of the employer;
  3. The way in which the Claimant had been treated; and
  4. All the surrounding circumstances

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment in F & G Cleaners v Saddington & Ors

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) considered that the Claimants had not unreasonably failed to accept an offer of alternative employment from F & G after the TUPE transfer. F & G’s contention was that the Tribunal had erred in deciding that the Claimant’s rejection of the offer was unreasonable as they would have lost their statutory rights. The EAT rejected this argument and found that the Tribunal had had reference to a wider set of considerations in determining that the refusal to accept the offer, including the nature of the contract that they would have been engaged on, the daily wage that they would have received, and their holiday entitlement (among other things). Further, the Claimants had not been dismissed at the time of the offer of the alternative employment (prior to 1 August 2008) and that the Claimants therefore had no duty to mitigate their loss.

Our specialist employment lawyers’ thoughts on F & G Cleaners v Saddington & Ors

This is an interesting case although we’re not quite sure as to why, firstly, this case went all the way to the Employment Tribunal and, further, why F & G insisted on appealing, unless there was some disagreement between the parties as to whether the failure to mitigate was a substantive issue throughout.

Redmans offer TUPE advice for employers and are also offer no win no fee unfair dismissal representation

About Chris Hadrill

Chris is a specialist employment lawyer at Redmans. He specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters, including breach of contract claims, compromise agreements and Employment Tribunal cases. He writes on employment law matters on a variety of websites, including Direct 2 Lawyers, Lawontheweb.co.uk, LegalVoice, the Justice Gap and his own blog.

Contact Chris by emailing him at chadrill@redmans.co.uk

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.52 Average

21 Reviews

Redman's provided excellent legal employment advice for me during a difficult time in my employment. Chris was my lawyer, super efficient, quick, reliable and clearly very experienced in the matter. Could not ask for a better law firm to deal with your query if you are in need of some help. Would definitely use them again in the future. Highly recommending Chris.

Posted 1 month ago

Steven

Chris Hadrill was very professional and responsive. I would highly recommend him

Posted 1 month ago

Dinah

Very Efficient, with very quick email reply’s. I had a matter that needed resolving within a very short space of time and Redmans Solicitors were great with dealing with my matter quickly.

Posted 1 month ago

Ankar

At Redmans the solicitor that was dealing with me was Chris. He dealt with my situation smoothly with clear guidance and explanation

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 2 months ago

Chris

Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 2 months ago

Dominic

Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 2 months ago

Kurt

Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Resolved my issues

Posted 2 months ago

Keith

Quick fast professional service.

Posted 2 months ago

Michael

"Prompt, efficient and practical advice that resulted in me getting some additional money tax free."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Patient and thorough advice given to me around my Settlement Agreement

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

"Excellent service, getting back to you promptly giving you very good advice."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

I found Chris Hadrill to be an excellent help, he is very knowledgeable and gives good ,concise ,strategic advice .He makes himself readily accessible when you need him.I would personally highly recommend him.

Posted 2 months ago

Christine

Professional, efficient and reliable service provided. I strongly recommend them and I would use this service again.

Posted 2 months ago