No5’s Russell Bailey succeeds in the EAT in Cetinsoy & others v London United Busways
The appellants were former bus drivers once employed by Centre West who TUPE transferred to London United following a route re-allocation.
London United required them to be based at a different depot and they claimed that the change of work location amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract and a substantial change in working conditions to their material detriment, entitling them to resign and claim to have been automatically unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal was persuaded not to follow the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Musse v Abellio and rejected their claims. The EAT upheld the decision of the tribunal on the ground that the determinations were issues of fact that the tribunal had been entitled to reach.
Notwithstanding that the employment contracts in Musse were identical, the change in work location was only three miles compared with seven miles in Musse and, unlike Musse, did not involve a move from the north to the south of the Thames.
News from No5 Chambers
Briefings from No5 Chambers
Jack Feeny explores the new law in relation to protected disclosures following the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.
Caroline Jennings reviews Palmer v RBS, which concerns whether or not a statutory restriction on eligibility for early retirement benefits could amount to age discrimination.