A tribunal judge has overturned a ruling which would have left Liverpool Mutual Homes exposed to claims worth hundreds of thousands of pounds for unfair dismissal and deduction of wages.

According to Inside housing:

A subsidiary of LMH this month persuaded an employment appeal tribunal to overturn a tribunal decision made last year which found there was a transfer of business from contractor Kinetics to the subsidiary on June 9, 2011.

The dispute is part of a long-running legal tussle between LMH and trade unions about redundancies and pay changes affecting more than 200 staff which transferred from repairs collapsed contractor Kinetics to the association’s subsidiary Housing Maintenance Solutions (HMS) in 2011.

Employees backed by unions Unite, GMB and UCATT claim the business transferred on 9 June, the day Kinetics went into administration.

However, HMS contends the employers did not become its responsibility until 1 July, when the majority of employees started working for the new company.

A transfer date of 9 June would have meant there was continuity of employment, which means the pay and conditions of employees transferring should have been protected under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) – or ‘TUPE’ – rules.

The latest ruling, on 1 August, said the basis on which the earlier decision made was wrong in law. The case will now go before a different employment judge to be heard again.

The employees claimed for lost wages between 9 June and 30 June, and that they were effectively unlawfully dismissed during this time and that HMS failed to consult on the TUPE transfer.

Judge Mrs Justice Slade found the employment judge last year ‘erred in law’ by finding that a transferee assumed responsibility for employees when they consulted them. In the employment appeal tribunal ruling on 1 August, Judge Slade referred the case back to a different judge to decide when the transfer took place. This means that HMS may still yet face claims.

Steve Power, regional officer at Unite, said: ‘If the argument goes our way [next time] it opens HMS up to claims from us on behalf of 200 or so of our members.’

A spokesperson for HMS denied the organisation was in a dispute with Unite.