ARTICLE
16 November 2012

Mitigation Of Loss: Refusing An Offer Of Re-Engagement

SJ
Steptoe LLP

Contributor

In more than 100 years of practice, Steptoe has earned an international reputation for vigorous representation of clients before governmental agencies, successful advocacy in litigation and arbitration, and creative and practical advice in structuring business transactions. Steptoe has more than 500 lawyers and professional staff across the US, Europe and Asia.
The employees were transferred to F&G following a re-tendering process but F&G did not consider that TUPE applied.
United Kingdom Employment and HR

Saddington and other v F&G Cleaners Ltd UKEAT/0140/11/JOJ

The employees were transferred to F&G following a re-tendering process but F&G did not consider that TUPE applied, and therefore instead of continuing the employees' employment, offered to engage them as self-employed contractors, which they refused. The tribunal found they had been automatically unfairly dismissed and EAT dismissed the F&G's appeal.It found that the employees had not acted unreasonably and had not failed to mitigate their loss by accepting self-employed terms. The difference between their previous terms and those offered by F&G were crucial.As F&G had effected their dismissals at the point when they had declined the offers of self-employment and not at the date of transfer, they were employed by F&G. The employees had not acted unreasonably as no duty to mitigate had arisen until they had been dismissed.

Key point: The test is not whether it would have been reasonable for the employees to have accepted the changes but whether the employees had been unreasonable in rejecting them.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More