Unfair Dismissal: Employer Must Rely on the Correct Reason in Chand v EE
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
The EAT found that failing to harmonise terms post-TUPE transfer can amount to indirect race discrimination, reinforcing employer responsibilities.
25 March 2026
Case Study
The case of Anne & Others v Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust demonstrates the risks of leaving transferred employees on inferior terms and conditions post-TUPE.
The claimants were a group of 80 cleaners of BAME background who transferred to the hospital under TUPE when the cleaning service they worked for was brought in-house. Post-transfer, they remained on their original contractual terms, which were significantly less favourable than those of directly employed hospital staff. Disparities included pay, sick pay, annual leave, and pension benefits, and persisted for over a year.
The employees brought claims for indirect race discrimination, arguing that the continued inequality in terms placed them at a disadvantage compared with in-house staff. At first instance, the Employment Tribunal agreed, finding that the disparities disproportionately affected a racially diverse group and therefore amounted to indirect discrimination.
The employer argued that harmonisation was not feasible due to cost and economic uncertainty. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the ET’s decision, confirming that leaving staff on inferior inherited terms was a discriminatory provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) that could not be justified. The EAT emphasised that intention is irrelevant, even if the employer did not intend to discriminate, failing to address the disparities could still constitute indirect discrimination.
The judgment serves as a reminder that TUPE protections do not automatically shield employers from claims arising from post-transfer inequalities. This applies across all TUPE scenarios, including service provision changes and re-tendering exercises.
Case Study
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the Employment Tribunal’s finding of indirect race discrimination, confirming that leaving transferred staff on inferior contractual terms post-TUPE amounted to a discriminatory provision, criterion, or practice (PCP). The claimants were successful.
The EAT explained that even though the disparities arose from inherited terms under TUPE, the hospital could not justify maintaining the inequalities. The employer argued that harmonising terms was too costly and posed economic uncertainty, but the tribunal found these reasons insufficient. The lack of discriminatory intent was irrelevant, liability arises from the effect of the PCP, not the employer’s motives. The EAT emphasised that the same principles apply to all TUPE scenarios, including service provision changes and re-tendering exercises.
Contact Us
For guidance on TUPE, harmonisation of terms, or preventing discrimination claims, call us on 03301 239 501 or complete the form below to speak with one of our experts.
Knowledge
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read MoreEAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read MoreTuesday
25
March
Join us for breakfast and networking, followed by our expert speaker presentation, a roundtable discussion, and a Q&A session.
Book your placeWednesday
26
March
Employment law update on family leave rights for 2026. Practical guidance, new entitlements and live Q&A for employers.
Book your placeET finds indirect sex discrimination where trans woman used female changing rooms, highlighting employer obligations and staff rights.
Read MoreET dismisses claims over trans women using female toilets, clarifying employer duties and best practice for workplace facilities.
Read MoreET rules on non-binary staff, workplace records, and harassment, clarifying protections under the Equality Act.
Read MoreEmployment Tribunal examines gender critical beliefs, trans rights, and single-sex spaces in landmark Peggie v Fife Health Board case.
Read MoreWednesday
11
March
Join us on 11 March 2026 for our Employment Law Seminar: key changes, tribunal cases, and expert insights for HR professionals.
Book your placeDownload our Employment Rights Act Resource Pack to navigate key 2025–2027 employment law changes with expert guidance and practical tools.
Read moreEmployee falls asleep at work and is unfairly dismissed; explore lessons for employers on investigations, mitigation, and proportionality.
Read MoreHow employers can handle whistleblowing effectively to reduce risk and prevent escalation, drawing lessons from the Argence-Lafon case.
Read MoreScroll to next section
Scroll back to the top
On Monday 29 September, Flint Bishop successfully completed the acquisition of the entire business of Lupton Fawcett LLP. You have been forwarded to the page most relevant to your visit.
Please feel free to explore our website and learn more about our legal services and professionals, including those who have recently joined us from Lupton Fawcett.